I think Adorno would say social process is equivalent to ideology. In that way, it is most distinct from Hegel's Absolute Spirit because Absolute Spirit thinks itself to have achieved objectivity. Negative Dialectics, on the other hand, is not a peering into reality, it is not truth through dialectic, rather it is a revelation about the presuppositions that sustain the ideological system. — NotAristotle

That gets along with what I'm thinking regarding @Metaphysician Undercover's inquiry.

At least insofar that we understand "Ideology" as more than "that which is thought", but something enacted and unquestioned.

Right, ideology is properly more than is thought qua thought, but I think Adorno would say it is thought nonetheless. In other words, ideology has yet to think itself as thought. Ideology qua ideology is enacted and unquestioned because it is "reality" or "the way things are" in opposition to the way things could be. That is perhaps one reading anyways.

I think Adorno would say social process is equivalent to ideology. In that way, it is most distinct from Hegel's Absolute Spirit because Absolute Spirit thinks itself to have achieved objectivity. — NotAristotle

I don't see the difference. How do you explain the following?

"The presumed social relativity of the intuitions obeys the objective law of social production under private ownership of the means of production"

He explicitly says "the objective law of social production". So he is claiming objectivity just as much as Hegel does with Absolute Spirit. "Social production" has replace "Absolute Spirit".

Further, when you say "social process is equivalent to ideology", the specific ideology being referred to is the ideology of Absolute Spirit. This is what inclines the individual, divergent perspectives to lose the non-committal aspect. It is true that the ideology which serves this purpose could be something other than Absolute Spirit, but what would that be? Well, it's "the objective law of social production". But now we need to understand how this law could be objective.

I read that in a Marxist sense. So the entrepreneur must pay a wage which is below the value produced by the labor-power he employs, else he will not be an entrepreneur for long. "social process" I take it to mean "Capitalism" in the age he's writing in, but as Marx describes it. — Moliere

Then he says about this capitalist attitude, "it can just as stringently be shown, however, why this objectively necessary consciousness is objectively false". And so I ask, how does he show it. And he claims "The presumed social relativity of the intuitions obeys the objective law of social production under private ownership of the means of production". And I do not understand what he means by this. What is "the objective law of social production"?

So, in fact, we can't all just "have our own truth", at least in accord with this particular relativism, because there is one truth that we must insist upon -- which, more generally, I'd take from the Marxist notions to think about so the economic superstructure of some kind. — Moliere

"Economic superstructure of some kind" does not equate with "objective law of social production". If such a law exists shouldn't it be describable?

And I do not understand what he means by this. What is "the objective law of social production"? — Metaphysician Undercover

The way I'm understanding that paragraph:


"... must calculate so that
the unpaid part of the yield of alienated labor falls to him as a profit,
and must think that like for like – labor-power versus its cost of
reproduction – is thereby exchanged"

is the law so described. "Like for like" is exchanged -- so a wage is set such that labor-power is sustained and reproduced and the wage is below the value being produced.

Ideologically "A fair days labor for a fair days pay" -- a falsity because if it were true then there'd be no profit, and thereby no entrepreneur.

The "objective law" is objective for someone who has consented to its objectivity, its reality; it is not truly objective but the one who consents to that "reality" thereby reifies it and lends it its objective aura. The objectively necessary consciousness is the thinking that goes in to sustaining the non-thought objectivity - that is, the ideology. That ideology could be capitalism as much as it could be Marxist communism. The relevant part is the attitude I think Adorno would have us take to theories and that attitude is one that acknowledges fictions as fictions. The point of such reflections must surely be intended as critique of the operant ideology. That is not to say that all ideologies are equal as the horrors of the twentieth century enacted by Marxist communist regimes indict themselves.

By "Marxist Interpretation" I'm referring to Karl Marx more than latter political movements -- here the "objective law" I'm thinking is as Marx describes it in Capital.

The way I'm understanding that paragraph:


"... must calculate so that
the unpaid part of the yield of alienated labor falls to him as a profit,
and must think that like for like – labor-power versus its cost of
reproduction – is thereby exchanged"

is the law so described. "Like for like" is exchanged -- so a wage is set such that labor-power is sustained and reproduced and the wage is below the value being produced.

Ideologically "A fair days labor for a fair days pay" -- a falsity because if it were true then there'd be no profit, and thereby no entrepreneur. — Moliere

But Adorno clearly says: "it can just as stringently be shown, however, why this objectively necessary consciousness is objectively false". So isn't it the case that he is rejecting the Marxist characterization of the capitalist form of the "objective law of social production"? If so, what is he proposing to replace it with?

Clearly he is saying that it is some form of "objective law" which produces the "whole", which we know as society:

In truth divergent perspectives have their law in the structure of
the social process, as one of a preestablished whole. Through its
cognition they lose their non-committal aspect.

The described law, Marx's social production is a law of competition. So when Adorn says that it can equally be shown to be objectively false, therefore sublated, I think he means that we could equally replace it with a law of cooperation. Competition and cooperation are opposed. But the law of competition is the one accepted by the bourgeoisie which embodies narrow-minded relativism.

Then he goes on, in the final paragraph, to explain how this really is hostility to the Spirit. There is a concept which rationalizes these relations of social production, it may be "the idea of the autonomy of the Spirit". But this idea produces a self-loathing, because it has actually ended up inhibiting the development of freedom. So this is what actually refutes relativism, the proof is in the pudding, the consequences of what its own existence has brought upon itself "the proof of its own narrowness crushes it".

The objectively necessary consciousness is the thinking that goes in to sustaining the non-thought objectivity - that is, the ideology. That ideology could be capitalism as much as it could be Marxist communism. — NotAristotle

Right, I think that the "objective law" could really be anything. But then, are we speaking any sort of truth when we refer to the "objective law"? If we want to acknowledge "fictions as fictions", then why would we even talk about the objective law, if all objective laws are actually fictions. Notice the quote above, "In truth ... a preestablished whole". I think we ought to conclude that Adorno thinks some form of "preestablished whole" is the truth, but the question is, what form of objective law supports the reality of this whole. He doesn't believe that all objective laws are fictions, because there must be a true one to support the existence of the preestablished whole.

if all objective laws are actually fictions — Metaphysician Undercover

I personally don't think all objective laws are fictions. And I think you are correct that Adorno also believes in objective laws and truth. There must be a reality in the first place for the project of negative dialectics to make any kind of sense.

But Adorno clearly says: "it can just as stringently be shown, however, why this objectively necessary consciousness is objectively false". — Metaphysician Undercover

I'd interpret this as it's the consciousness which is false rather than the necessary social law.

I'm interpreting Adorno as noting a performative contradiction in the relativist. The consciousness must adhere to the law of exchange, but if the entrepreneur were to do that then there is not an equality between labor-power and a wage unless the entrepreneur were to erase himself from the equation.

On one side we have the capitalist who sets the wage such that labor is reproduced and there is some surplus-value which said capitalist directs. On the other we have a worker who would set their wage equal to the value produced such that they keep their surplus value. Were the capitalist a true relativist then this social law could be mediated by people setting their own wages such that they retain their surplus-value.

But the capitalist is no relativist, after all -- there is only a very small part of thought which the capitalist relativizes, namely the Spirit and anything that has nothing to do with the productive process, such as the qualitative rather than the quantitative.


I could be wrong but that's how I understood that section, at least.

I personally don't think all objective laws are fictions. And I think you are correct that Adorno also believes in objective laws and truth. There must be a reality in the first place for the project of negative dialectics to make any kind of sense. — NotAristotle

Assuming that there is an objective law concerning social relations, how do you think it would it look? Traditionally, this would be God's law, and I discussed this briefly with Jamal earlier in the thread. But "God" is actually very simplistic, and just an easy principle which facilitates the assertion of objective law. As much as this principle is readily accepted by the followers, the sheep, it's not very appealing to the rational speculative mind, because it's really more of an avoidance of the problem rather than addressing it. Hegel attempted to provide a more rational principle with the Idea, or the Spirit, but it's not well grounded.

This way that "God" is unappealing to the rational mind is very interesting to me. God is an ancient idea, and as such it is ultra simplistic, and it actually becomes repugnant to the modern mind. Rational human beings rebel against this idea because it is ancient, simplistic, and produced by uneducated beings. This is how I see the movement of Jesus and his followers as a resistance against "God". They rebelled against those who held on to "God", and rebelled against the prevailing idea of "God". However, the human population in general, was not readily for this revolution, and Saul/Paul subverted the whole process, rendering Christianity, which was intended as a revolt against the God fearing religion, as a God serving religion. Some claim Jesus failed.

We can see a similar situation today. rational human beings rebel against the idea of "God" and desire to rid us of this artifact left behind from the uneducated. However, we can notice from the state of the world today, that the human population is generally not ready for this.

But this is where "objective law" is the crux. Anyone can offer up a version of "objective law" which is fictional, but over time the fictitiousness will be revealed, and the movement will be fruitless. There is however, one which always seems to escape this fate, God. So in this particular set of circumstances, charging that God is fictional, just like all the other fictional objective laws doesn't work, because we generally believe in objective laws and truths, and the habit is already, to fall back on "God". This means that a better, more true, or less fictional, objective law is required to avoid this trap.

I could be wrong but that's how I understood that section, at least. — Moliere

As usual, we disagree in interpretation.

I'm interpreting Adorno as noting a performative contradiction in the relativist. The consciousness must adhere to the law of exchange, but if the entrepreneur were to do that then there is not an equality between labor-power and a wage unless the entrepreneur were to erase himself from the equation. — Moliere

Why would you assume that there needs to be an equality? The inequality is what the capitalist lives on, and it is the basic feature of relativism.

But the capitalist is no relativist, after all -- there is only a very small part of thought which the capitalist relativizes, namely the Spirit and anything that has nothing to do with the productive process, such as the qualitative rather than the quantitative. — Moliere

The capitalist is the relativist:

The presumed social relativity of the intuitions obeys
the objective law of social production under private ownership of the
means of production. Bourgeois skepticism, which embodies relativism
as a doctrine, is narrow-minded.

Why would you assume that there needs to be an equality? The inequality is what the capitalist lives on, and it is the basic feature of relativism. — Metaphysician Undercover

The capitalist is the relativist: — Metaphysician Undercover

I feel like we're so close and so far away at the same time here.

There does not need to be an equality -- that's the false consciousness of the capitalist relativist. A capitalist says "A fair days work for a fair days wage", but the objective law of that wage is that the capitalist must pay the worker less than what they produce.

So the capitalist claims relativism but it's a narrow relativism that is, objectively, in the capitalist's favor.

Again, that's how I understand that section.

I want to note that there aren't so many demonstrations here (especially wrt Marx) as much as an introduction to the idea of ND -- we have much more of the book to go through is what I mean. We can drop this (as you note, usual) disagreement on interpretation and move on.

Rational human beings rebel against this idea — Metaphysician Undercover

But God is not an idea. And I am a rational human being who does not rebel against God. God is simple in being, yes, but I should think the creator of all things is even more complex than the greatest complexity found in creation. God is truth and the source of the objective law. And what is this objective law? Jesus spoke it, you know it already: it is to love God with all your heart, mind, and soul and to love your neighbor as yourself.

But God is not an idea. And I am a rational human being who does not rebel against God. God is simple in being, yes, but I should think the creator of all things is even more complex than the greatest complexity found in creation. — NotAristotle

Good point, but for many rational human beings, God is just an idea. In that case God is very simple. So , amongst rational human beings there is discrepancy as to the meaning of "God". And many deny that "to love God with all your heart, mind, and soul and to love your neighbor as yourself" is the objective law.

This calls into question the relationship between rational human beings and objective law. Since human beings are subjects, and rationality is a property of subjects, rationality is fundamentally subjective. This implies a sort of gap between rational human beings and objective law, perhaps the ought/is gap.