Rational and Irrational Control

People who hear voices, sometimes experience rational control from the voices - meaning that the voices try to impose controlling reason, onto the voice hearer - telling the voice hearer what to think or do, or imposing questions. This can be caused or influenced, by the way that some psychiatrists, social workers, and mental health workers, have treated and related towards us. Sometimes the voice hearer will talk, or think, irrational and/or meaningless nonsense, to avoid the voices having this rational control, because as a coping-strategy, this often works, and is very effective. This is also why some psychiatric diagnosed people, sometimes mumble, talk, or shout out, irrational or meaningless nonsense.

Rational control, by others socially, can have the same affect, and also be a way of controlling or repressing the emotions, or more creative, artistic, scientific, or abstract thinking, and it is something that bad teachers and bad politicians try to do to us. There is also such a thing as irrational control, when madness or unreason dominates reason and logical free thinking, and rational and irrational control, can both be connected and related, or used separately or simultaneously against people socially. Rational and irrational control can both be used emotionally and intellectually against people too.

First of all, I want to look into whether the emotions are experienced first, before rational or intellectual thinking, as a lot of modern alternative psychological theories, tend to simply state that this is the case. It is also a view more widely held by some women than men, maybe because some men and women experience, or are told that they experience things very differently. It’s possible that neither the emotions, nor the rational mind or intellect, are experienced first, as what is experienced first, is fragmented, random, chaos. This is a bit too simple an explanation for me though, although I do believe there is some truth in it, but that the crux of the matter, is how raw experience is processed, which makes it primarily emotional or rational, or both.

I believe that experience comes first, before emotions and thought, as experience is a separate thing in itself, something encompassing the whole mind and being, and something spiritual and sensory. Experience comes first, then perceptions - the transforming or filtering of experience into emotions or thoughts - comes after.

I do not believe that most normal emotions and thoughts overwhelm people, as there are many subtle kinds of emotions and thoughts, and on the whole we can choose in what way, or to what degree, emotions and thoughts influence or affect us. The times where this is not the case, is if we are being threatened with violence, terrorised, and oppressed, abused or mistreated in some way, and then that choice becomes somewhat problematic or limited, especially if mutual hatred or anger is involved, as anger is a powerful emotion which can annihilate, limit, obscure, or distort feeling and especially thinking.

Irrational control, seeks to diminish all emotion and thought, to control people in a purely behaviourist way, by their instinctual reactions, and which is why I am opposed to pure behaviourism. In my opinion, pure behaviourism, is just another form of abuse, and it has no place in society or the modern mental health system.

Intrusive Thoughts

Myself, two friends of mine, and some people I speak to over the Internet - either in a chat room, or on msn (one-to-one) messenger - all sometimes experience so-called intrusive thoughts, although some of us hear negative voices with it, and others just hear or sense (other) thoughts as intrusive, but not voices as such.

This begs the question of whether some social voices are experienced as intrusive, in the person’s social life, and what bearing this has upon internal intrusive thoughts in general. This could be due to a vulnerability to stress, and/or that the person has some intrusive, aggressive, or domineering people in their lives.

There is a tendency, for people of all political persuasions, to say that intrusive, negative, rude, and violent thoughts, are just our own conscious thoughts, which we are not being responsible for, but this view amongst especially the right-wing, but also amongst many cognitive therapists, and some psychiatric survivors, is outdated, and needs understanding from new perspectives and approaches.

One thing that makes me angry, and which I very much dislike about the Tories, is that they are one-sidedly obessesed with the view, that some people make excuses for their bad thoughts and behaviours. Firstly, this annoys me, because they say this, as if it is one group doing this in society, such as criminals, or voice hearers, when people in power and authority justify their bad behaviours in that way.

Secondly, it makes me angry, because the Tories are just ignorant, and do not appreciate, understand, nor realise, that everyone are somewhat influenced by their so social, environmental, and life-experiences. On the issue of responsibility and freewill, you can’t always be responsible and free, unless you understand how experiences have influenced you first.

Emotions and Catharsis

A close friend of mine, asked me a few important questions about the emotions: Are emotions more to do with the past or the future? Are emotions more to do with the imagination or reality? Are emotions or thoughts experienced first?

The question as to whether the emotions, are more to do with the past or the present, are ideologically to do with whether a theory is a radical, or a more so-called modern mental health theory.

Radical theory tends to emphasise emotions, blocks, and catharsis or release, usually to do with releasing, the negative emotions of past traumatic events, such abuse, loss, or mistreatment. Whereas, so-called modern mental health theories of emotions, tend to focus on present negative emotions and treatment, and also focus on present, positive emotions, and self-control. So the answer to my friend’s first question, is often a case of "Who pays the piper, calls the tune".

The trouble with a lot of radical, or catharsis theories of emotions, is that they tend to be deterministic and mechanistic, fail to acknowledge that people release and cathart emotions when abusing or mistreating others, and they over-focus on releasing only negative emotions, and tend to state, that there is only one way of releasing negative emotions - either through sexuality, deep breathing techniques, primal screaming - or crying.

A person in the mental health chat room I frequent, gave the brilliant analogy of a battery, to which he said, that emotional well-being, all depends on how the positive emotions, connect to the negative ones, and that if you only focus on the negative ones - without a mutual connection between the positive and negative - then you get a dead battery.

The trouble with so-called modern mental health theory, is that they deny the reality, of past emotional pain and suffering, caused by traumatic events such as abuse, and force people to repress those things, in favour of dealing with simply present negative and positive emotions.

From personal experience, I have found times when I very much needed to release negative emotions, through crying, and which made me feel better afterwards, but I have also found, that I needed to focus on experiencing, and connecting, to positive emotions as well. These positive emotions then, were not simply released, but also stored, or had a good influence in my mind and/or memory, and connected to the negative emotions, in a way that enabled some kind of mutual reciprocity, and transformation. Both positive and negative emotions, can have a good influence, in increasing our sensitivity and awareness, of things like love, empathy, and compassion, and again, all depend upon how the negative connects to and is influenced by the positive, and vice versa.

I tend to think and believe, that the mind and emotions, think and feel in terms of association, or associative influences or links, and that present positive or negative emotions, can be influentially linked to past ones, and vice versa, although I realise that association theory is limited, and that associative feeling and thinking theory, historically paved the way for behaviourism in psychology, which I tend to dislike, because behaviourism objectifies and punishes people, with instinctual associative responses, and treats them like animals, without human potential for choices and change.

What I have discovered, about the emotions and thoughts, is that some things are linked by association, and some things aren’t - but that the links connect like road maps - in unusual and indirect ways, sometimes halted by blocks, and sometimes prolonged, distracted, or suspended by different winding paths and tunnels, where they link up, break off or divert in different directions, and then link up again.

This, and the battery analogy, is also how thoughts and emotions, are experienced first at different times, according to the situation and responses, and from individual to individual, and it is the more complex association theory I believe in, which is more truthful and accurate, from both experience and observation.

My Dinner with Andre

I just watched the film My Dinner with Andre, about a long conversation, in a New York restaurant, between a playwright called Walter, and a theatre director called Andre, who has recently travelled to far-away places such as India. Their conversation is all about mysticism, and existentialism, versus science, and pragmatism, but there are some areas of consensus, between Walter and Andre.

Their conversation in the restaurant, is very dialectical, and to sum up their arguments very basically, the director says, that you have to escape from domestic routine, and from everyday meaning - transcend ordinary, mundane, superficial reality - and simply BE (what the playwright refers to as "pure being"). On the other hand, the playwright, says that he believes that purposefulness (doing or thinking things) is more authentic, and a basic part of the structure, of what it means to be a human being - to actually be doing things - conversations, thoughts, or actions.

The playwright says, that mysticism and magic, are based upon escapism and coincidences, but that science is based upon tests of reality, which can be repeated and verified. They both agree though, that science has magically provided the answers for everything, and turned people into unthinking, unfeeling, robots and machines.

The other thing the playwright said, was that mysticism, and believing in magical signs and symbols, was a way of avoiding, full, rational responsibility, or of avoiding actually doing things. The director, then said that doing things, and conforming to conventional roles, was a way of avoiding our true selves, thoughts, and feelings.

The director concludes, by saying that we are, most of the time, just being performers in our social roles, and not being our true or authentic selves. He seems to be saying in his conclusion, that we should deviate from, or subvert roles, and that roles are ephemeral with social and life-changes anyway.

What I love about this film, is that there are some good arguments on both sides, the odd humorous moment here and there, and some profound insights in it, and it really gets you thinking about a lot of things. I think it's a film that could change people's lives in some ways.

The Irrational and Holistically Meaningful Nature of Triggers

I recently spoke to a friend on the phone, who lives about thirty five miles from me, and my other friend Luke, and who says he can’t see us lately, because of his mental health problem. He had said to me before, in a previous phone conversation, that he is avoiding drinking hot drinks, and hot food, because he believes that the heat from them, is affecting and damaging his brain. When he avoids hot drink and foods he feels fine, and so I told him to do what works for him, and to do what he wants to do.

I asked this friend what symptoms he gets, when he is drinking hot drinks and eats hot food, and he said that he felt less alive, and basically that he felt more empty. I asked him if he felt empty of emotion, or energy, and he said he felt empty of memory, and confirmed to me that his memory was going away. I said to him, that this could be due to the fact, that he was repressing painful or complex memories, which most people do, and which is in some ways necessary for staying sane, and survival. Some exploration and catharsis of bad memories is good, but self-repression isn’t all bad, and can also be very useful; and helpful.

After I said, that I didn’t really want to label him, I then suggested that he might have a form of OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), in terms of the avoidance behaviour (people with OCD repeat or avoid harmless things, or they fear bad things will happen to themselves or their loved ones, if they don’t avoid the triggers), but he said it wasn’t a compulsion, as he has stopped drinking hot tea and hot food altogether.

I explained to this friend that, I wasn’t patronising him, before on the phone, when I said that his theory about hot drinks and food, was as good as any other theory, because I didn’t want to say it was a delusion, and because I believed that there was much more involved in it.

I explained to my friend that there are such things as triggers - experiences or events - which can bring back bad, painful, or traumatic memories. In his case though, the trigger of hot drinks and food, repress his memory, and therefore doesn’t flood, or cathartically release it.

However, I felt it was necessary to point out to him, that contrary to the psychotherapeutic view, that triggers are linked to bad, painful, or traumatic memory - triggers - can be completely irrational, and have no causal meaning to them. When I was very mentally unwell in 2000, before I stayed in psychiatric hospital for three weeks, I thought that there was something implanted in my computer and television, which was firing radiation at me, and destroying my brain. There is no psychotherapeutic link to this trigger for me, because I only have happy memories of watching TV, and using my computer, although it could be argued that those things had stopped me from socialising face-to-face, with other people.

The other key thing about triggers, is that although they can be irrational, and not linked to past or recent bad, painful, or traumatic events, the triggers all make sense and have meaning and explanation, when they are all linked up, and understood holistically together. This is the approach which is needed in psychotherapy, against the old simplistic, dogmatic, and inaccurate model.

My Spirituality

I used to be a Buddhist, following traditional Indian Buddhism and meditation, then Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism involving chanting. I went back to searching spiritually, and have found my own spirituality, which are to a great extent the positive hearing voices. I believe in Karma up to a point, although it’s obvious to me that there is also social inequality, inequality of choices, and social injustice, which has nothing to do with past actions and lives, but are due to the economic, social, and political system.

Karma in some ways, does seem to be real, but in other ways, it doesn’t seem to apply to reality. I therefore, think that some aspects of reality are karmic, whilst others are due to other factors. I kind of believe in rebirth, but then again, I wonder why old beings, would be reborn over and over again, when it seems to me that every being born, is a completely new being. Maybe some are new, and some are old, and some are reborn in different material worlds or realities.

I am an agnostic, and do not claim to know whether there is or isn’t a God, but I sometimes pray to God, the Goddess, nature spirits, and Jesus Christ. When I was age 14, my first spirituality was witchcraft, or what is now called wicca, and in some ways I am still a witch, as I worship the spirits in nature, the universe itself, the multi-universe, and the Goddess or feminine human nature/spirit.

I like some Christianity, but I cannot accept any so-called Christianity, which supports war or state violence, terrorism, or oppression, and which is driven by the bourgeois ethic, of selfish capitalistic individualism, without some primary social loyalty or communitarianism. Christian socialism, or Christian anarchism, therefore seems more authentic or true to the principles of Christianity to me. Also, the Christian relatives in my family, knew I was being abused as a child, and yet did not speak out, and so I cannot support any Christianity which supports that kind of pacifism which allows evil.

I don’t have anything to do with any state religion, as I believe that the establishment church, are in some ways opposed to spiritual diversity, uniqueness, and truth, and are morally and ethically corrupted, by the old social and material political system.

Hearing positive voices for me, are what connects me to the divine or other worlds, and to the social world, at the same time evoking other beings in other material planes, and opening up my mind and awareness to wider social and political reality.

Hearing positive voices, is somewhat of a very complex matter, which cannot be accurately or lucidly understood, in purely simplistic terms. The positive voices, are not simply my own thoughts. They often begin as my own thoughts, but then become autonomous and independent of my consciousness and thinking. This is how my mind connects to the divine or other beings, universes, and worlds. I believe in quantum reality, and that different material worlds and universes are linked and interconnected.

Child Abuse and Protection

I just listened to Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, on the topic of child protection, and the related role and value of social workers. There was some positive points in the programme, about social workers working in or with schools, safeguarding children against abuse from a brother or sister, parenting skills for bad parents, and that experience with children for social workers was important..

My main criticism of the programme, is that is overall, it only focused on the functions of social workers, and didn’t look at their psychological attitudes, towards things like preventing or surviving child abuse. Aside from the extreme idealism, of the establishment media, the public and other mental health services, know very well that social workers are authoritarian, and have all the character traits and complexes, of the authoritarian mind-set.

What is so wrong about the entire adult education, and professional training system, is that it only looks at lay people’s psychological problems, but does not also try to analyse and understand (or even acknowledge) the psychological problems of people in authority. I’m not advocating abolishing authority, but until this changes about the system, that we openly acknowledge that the character traits and mind-sets of authoritarianism, are social and mental health problems, we will never progress as a human race, society, or world.

To give a couple of examples, of the bad attitudes of social workers towards abuse survival, when I told my social worker I was abused as a child, throughout my childhood and early teens, she accused me of lying. When I did convince her that I had been abused as a child, she said maybe the person was right to abuse me. I don’t believe that this was an individual case, but rather that these attitudes were indicative of her profession. The comedienne Jo Brand, said that she was bullied by her older brother, and that her mother, who was a social workers, let him do this.

Another criticism I had of the programme, is that by the examples it gave, it gave the impression that only men abuse children, and that all abuse is either physical or sexual. Whilst psychical abuse, often goes along with emotional and mental abuse and cruelty, as it did when I was abused as a child and teen, we need to also acknowledge that emotional and mental abuse also causes physical pain, in much the same way that mental illness does, because the mind is connected to the body. When I was repeatedly physically and emotionally abused as child, made to cry, and then made to suppress all my emotion (I was violently attacked for being happy, sad, or expressing any emotion), I had very severe pain in my eyes, head, stomach, and chest, from crying and made to repress pain and emotion.

We need to understand that some woman do abuse children, because the system gives more rights to women who abuse children, than it gives rights to abused children or abuse survivors, and this is all a consequence of women’s rights, in some ways, going too far, and becoming imbalanced in society. I have been in psychiatric hospital twice as a patient, and yet the person who abused me has never been diagnosed with a mental illness. The other thing, is that the version we have of women's rights, mostly serves middle-class women, but does not liberate working-class women from sexual slavery and being house-bound. These are social and political issues, which cannot be solved by social work alone.

The programme also didn’t say, what happens to abused children when they are removed from families. Are they put into care homes where they are further abused? Or are they fostered in places, where foster parents, don’t have to take parenting or child development classes? I spoke to a fellow psychiatric survivor recently, and she made a good point that Childline needs to be more promoted and funded by the government. The other point, is that the programme focused on children’s protection, but did not focus on children’s rights. We need to create environments or outlets, where a child can speak out if she or he is abused, and listen to children and their wishes. This means a cultural change, where we eradicate the master-slave mentality and behaviours that adults often have towards children.

My Views on the German Existentialist Philosopher Heidegger

I recently listened to Hubert Dryfus' audio lectures, on Heidegger's book Being and Time. I've come to the conclusion that it is ultra-radical, extremist, bullshit though. From what I gather so far, Heidegger said there was no such thing as being, but that it is something we create, although it has no properties or entity.

He also said that feelings were not subjective, because there was no such thing as the subjective and objective, and that all feelings are just things that happen to us in the world. He said we were pre-ontological, because we had an understanding of being, but that understanding was a very practical thing, like what we do, rather than what we know. He also said that we are not being, consciousness, or entities, but simply we are what we do. Heidegger supported the Nazis in Germany, and was pro Nazi, and I can see how Heidegger’s philosophy fits in very neatly with Nazism, and with communism too.

Contrary to what Heidegger said, I think there IS such a thing as being, and that it is both pre-existent, has properties, and is an entity, although I accept that to some degree we create it, socially, or psychologically. Some of it is pre-existing, and some of it is created. That's more accurate, well-balanced, and more moderate, than what Heidegger said, which was inaccurate, illogical, and extreme. I think Heidegger's nihilism about the self, is what makes his philosophy, slot into the mass conformity of fascism and totalitarianism, and I see it as ideologically and politically created.

I'm sympathetic to Heidegger's view, that there's no such thing as the subjective and objective, because I think those things are polarised too much in politics, psychology, and philosophy, and there is much that goes beyond those concepts; and exists inbetween, but I don't believe that feelings aren't in any way subjective. I do believe that feelings can be objective, as Heidegger said though, and so I agree with him there, but it seems to me, that to say that feelings are not in any way subjective, denies experience.

Heidegger was saying that experience was objective though, and again I can agree with that up to a point. He was ahead of his time, and his philosophy is similar to mine, on that matter, in that respect. Heidegger's view that understanding is like a skill or what we do, or is something very practical, is also like his view of the self, in that it dehumanises, and omits the importance of various kinds of human relationships. I don't believe that we are what we do. That seems anti-intellectual and anti-emotional to me, and again I think it's crap.

A Personal Perspective on Marxism

I have read three books on Marxism in the past, which were all very different descriptions of Marxism, including reading some of the first volume of Das Kapitol by Karl Marx. Whilst I have on separate occasions in the past, agreed with some Marxism in theory, I have not overall been convinced by Marxism politically, or in practise, nor been in agreement with its end-result, of a centralised, monopolistic, state-controlled Communist society.

The dialectic, is a process of reasoning, which involves a thesis (theory, idea, argument, or statement), anti-thesis (opposing theory/idea/argument/statement/perspective), and a synthesis or combination of the two, in order to form a new theory, perspective, or thesis. This process, was originally was one of reasoning and discussion, but Marx described it as a materialistic process, or political and human struggle, and he said that the anti-thesis, to the thesis, of state-capitalism, was the struggle of the working classes for economic gain, and that the synthesis and new thesis, was a Communist society and world. It has been said about Marx by others, that whilst he was quite good at critiquing state-capitalism, he didn't say much about what form a Communist society would take, other than in economic terms, but he was clear, that it would be a dictatorship.

The dialectic in its original form, as thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis, is very much a process of reasoning, and it is the intellectual basis, that a lot of our parliamentary, democratic politics, is based upon. I have also made some use of the dialectic, in some of my thinking and writing, because it seems to me, that it descirbes a lot of things about human nature, the mind, and society, that things can be both separate yet connected or interrelated. It does occur to me though, that a lot of parliamentary politics, are just based upon the thesis/anti-thesis model, and don't progress much to forming a synthesis or consensus, although this has changed somewhat in modern society, with the political parties being somewhat influenced by each others policies, in order to gain polarity and votes. I'll mention this aspect, and the much wider aspects of ideology in a moment, but first I want to look at the aspect of Marxism, which it is often said about it, that it rejects reason, as a means for change, in favour of some pure action.

The last point, I want to make about the dialectic, in it's original form, is that whilst it does describe a lot about human nature, the mind, and society, it is still a process of positives and negatives, whereas a thesis doesn't necessarily have to be met, or challenged, by an anti-thesis or an immediate negative, it can merely be responded to by another fresh thesis, unrelated to the original thesis. This is a more innovative and positive approach, which is not argumentative or confrontational, and which does not mean that we are dependent in any way upon a previous thesis.

Reason is very important, and it seems to me, that action without reason, is irrational and dangerous, and can only lead to chaos and dictatorship. You need reason, in order to carry things out in action, otherwise those with reason behind action, would just take over spontaneous action, no matter how good its goals or intentions. Marxists often argue that reason doesn't change anything, and that in place of it you need extremism, violence, and force, but I don't agree with that, because again it would lead to dictatorship, and what I want is a free and equal society, based upon fairness and opportunities for all.

There is of course, the question of whether opportunities for all, is just too idealistic and unworkable. For one thing, opportunities for all, is better that the concept of equal opportunities, of the eighties, as equal opportunities, was only a policy for the main, fully established minority and oppressed groups in society, such as blacks, gays, and women, but neglected other minority and oppressed groups, such as people with mental health problems, disabilities, the homeless, and the better rights, welfare, and care of children. The equal opportunities, concept and policy, of the eighties, was hypocritical, immoral, unethical, and corrupt, because it did not aim to create opportunities for everyone, but sought to target certain minorities against others, and this sometimes meant putting minorities into state power, against the same or other minorities, but without creating any corresponding equality or democracy, for those at the lower levels of the class system and society.

On the claim that opportunities for all is idealistic, it is far less idealistic than the limited policy of equal opportunities, and I think that on that particular area, New Labour got the shift of policy and context right. Of course, there will always be winners and losers in any society, but that usually happens in a stage or certain stages in people's lives, and does not have to affect, the whole of their life-opportunities and life-span. The fact that all political parties create some out-groups, and share that characteristic with fascism, means that there will always be a minority, or group at large, who lose out, but overall speaking, the reality of winners, out-groups, and losers in society, is not a natural one, but a social and economic process, and which can be to a fair extent, constructed and rectified, to create overall equalities and opportunities for all.

This brings me to the subject of class, class inequalities, and what Marx called 'class consciousness'. There is a strong valid argument in Marxism, which says that society, and/or the political system, needs to be structured or mechanised around enabling better wages, to those poorer people in society, but the concept of the working classes is a complex one, as it does not include people who are on very low-wages, or people who are unemployed or unable to work. A lot of Marxists, and so-called left-wing socialist political groups and parties, only have sympathy and empathy, with those who work, and those who have potential power. They don't seem interested in sharing power with other poor people, or empowering the poor and powerless in society. This Marxist obsession for power, seems to me to smack of fascism, rather than any kind of socialism, and is my first major objection to Marxism.

The other major disagreements I have with Marxism, despite the fact that some people say it is all sound in theory, is that it is fundamentally flawed in theory in two ways. Marx based most of his entire philosophy and political theory, upon the idea of two single individual people, or intellectual authority figures. The first was the philosopher Hegel, who said that the dialectic (thesis-antithesis/synthesis process of reasoning), was embodied in what he 'universal mind or 'spirit', and in history and the nation-state, and the second person was Feurerbach who was a materialist. Anyone who bases their entire philosophy on two single authority figures like Hegel and Feurerbach, is bound to come up with a ludicrous and monstrous overall political philosophy, that would lead to authoritarianism and dictatorship.

I fundamentally reject the concept of universal mind, or Marx's version of it as 'class consciousness', because those concepts only see, and present consciousness as collective, and do not also put importance upon individual consciousness. Collective consciousness, is important, and essential for social enlightenment and change, but only if there is some kind of dialectical process involved, in both interrelating and interconnecting it, with individual consciousness or mind, where the two things are both unified and separate, and where there is some kind of two way interaction and influence, and/or a centre area of consensus inbetween.

For me, this dialectical process, and centre area or consensus, involves to some extent, a filtering process, where both my awareness of my self, and my social awareness, interact and influence each other overall positively, and the positive hearing voices I experience are a part of that. This does not mean, that I idealise social reality, or that I am out of touch with reality. I am more than aware, of the evil, exploitation, and oppression, that exists in human nature and society, and the social, spiritual, and political processes, and mechanisms of that, as this articles explains, but I do not allow society to control or negatively influence my individual awareness, or for me to negatively influence society.

The second major theoretical objection, I have against Marxism, is that it states that only when people are enslaved in some way, can they realise that they are exploited and oppressed, and revolt and rebel against their present circumstances and situation. Marxism therefore justifies slavery, assumes that people will not want to be free and change society, without coercion, control, and abusive power over them, and to me it is just as evil as authoritarian state-capitalism.

Class consciousness is problematic, because different Marxists have very different ideas of what class consciousness actually is. Some Marxists say that class consciousness, can exist only within the broad working classes, whilst other Marxists - usually more modern ones - say that working class consciousness, is something which is to be permeated throughout the whole of society.

I do not idealise or romanticise the working classes, or any particular class, because the working classes have broadly and strongly supported fascism, such as with the popular far-right skinhead youth subculture of the eighties, and because economic gain for the employed working classes, was the same mentality of Thatcherism. There are good and bad qualities and characteristics to all classes, but there is a strong tendency for modern radical and revolutionary socialists, and right-wing democratic socialists, to betray and turn their backs against the general working class people, and that also is a form of fascism.

Last but not least, is the whole matter of political ideology, and what Marx called the 'ideological struggle'. Ideology, basically means beliefs, ideas, or principles, that create solidarity and/or political and social action. The ideological struggle of Marxism, is to enlighten working class people how the class system influences their ideas and actions, and how to organise for political and social change. The other aspect to ideological struggle though, is that it can simply mean - and is often misused as - propaganda, lies, and deliberate misleading and misinformation. This also justifies deceit and betray on a personal level, or interpersonally.

Whilst I have three major fundamental objections to Marxism, I would not reject it overall or completely, as the dialectic, of both Marx, and Hegel, are both to some extent useful and worth saving, filtering, and transforming