文章連結 :
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/05/quilting-point.html#disqus_thread
最近Lenin tomb都沒有新文章貼出來，故找了一篇五月份的文章貼出來。說是文章，其實內裡是某幾段引自 Ernesto Laclau的
Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory: Capitalism - Fascism - Populism的文字。
其主要帶出了幾個有關意識形態(Ideology)與階級(Class)的關係的討論，如其認為意識形態本身並無任何階級的成分，任何階級也能透過「Articulating」去利用某種意識形態，如文中便以國家主義(Nationalism)來作例子。
另外，佢亦有論述意識形態如何作為某階級的統治工具，指出「A class is hegemonic not so much to the extent that it is able to impose a uniform conception of the world on the rest of society, but to the extent that it can articulate different visions of the world in such a way that their potential antagonism is neutralised.」
不過最為有趣的是，文章下面一連串的討論，當中如essentialism與idealism的爭論均對我們極其重要。尤其作為一個馬克思主義者－－一種在香港被長期忽略的論述，我們更需要對這些問題作出深刻的思考，以建構一套更為完整的論述以說服其他人，並且防範那些來自不同敵人的抹黑又或偷換概念之舉。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quilting point posted by lenin
"The class character of an ideological discourse is revealed in what we could call its specific articulating principle. Let us take an example: nationalism. Is it a feudal, bourgeois or proletarian ideology? Considered in itself it has no class connotation. The latter only derives from its specific articulation with other ideological elements. A feudal class, for example, can link nationalism to the maintenance of a hierarchical-authoritarian system of a traditional type - we need only think of Bismarck’s Germany. A bourgeois class may link nationalism to the development of a centralised nation-state in fighting against feudal particularism, and at the same time appeal to national unity as a means of neutralising class conflicts - think of the case of France. Finally, a communist movement can denounce the betrayal by capitalist classes of a nationalist cause and articulate nationalism and socialism in a single ideological discourse - think of Mao, for example. One could say that we understand by nationalism something distinct in the three cases. This is true, but our aim is precisely to determine where this difference lies. Is it the case that nationalism refers to such diverse contents that it is not possible to find a common element of meaning in them all? Or rather is it that certain common nuclei of meaning are connotatively linked to diverse ideological-articulatory domains? If the first solution were accepted, we would have to conclude that ideological struggle as such is impossible, since classes can only compete at the ideological level if there exists a common framework of meaning shared by all forces in struggle. It is precisely this background of shared meanings that enables antagonistic discourses to establish their difference. The political discourses of various classes, for example, will consist of antagonistic efforts of articulation in which each class presents itself as the authentic representative of ‘the people’, of ‘the national interest’, and so on. If, therefore, the second solution - which we consider to be the correct answer - is accepted, it is necessary to conclude that classes exist at the ideological and political level in a process of ar ticulation and not of reduction.
