In these current times, Marxist Theory is curious and noteworthy precisely for its role as the assumed polar opposite of the dominant and currently most powerful (?) political ideology, that of Capitalism. Some might even label him and his offspring and cousin theories as an enemy of our superstructures and bases, a dangerous disruptor. Indeed, our government fought the Cold War with practitioners of this type of politic for decades. These “others,” these people with such dangerous, Communist/Marxist ideals and actions were “behind an iron curtain” of essentially ideological dissent within modalities of government. This split of ideological differences is interesting because of how Marx thinks of ideology. He sees it as a roadblock to vision, theoretical vision that led to practical applications in particular it seemed. Ideology prevented theoretical vision and practical action—personal, professional, institutional, or otherwise—to go past a particular conceptual “line in the sand,” a line ideology was responsible for apparently. And yet, the clash between government types (on one side spawned by his own theories) is essentially an ideological conflict. Which raises particular questions for me in terms of this problem of boundaries of sight or non-sight and the role of ideology that creates the tension in between.
In the interests of my own position in history and within this government of a certain type of said opposing ideology, I am curious how a clash of ideas could be so powerful as to cause so definitive a division. What is essentially so different about this theory that it would disrupt and possibly endanger my living in the current political state and time I am in (as Cold War and even current USA rhetoric would claim)? Marxist theory essentially makes me do what most critical theory seems to do, that is to make me wonder and question what is on the other side of my current ideological grounding or state? What is behind the curtain? Is it a wizard man, is it a utopia (or dystopia), is it an end, an end to what, and the beginning to what? What happens when the line is crossed, what sorts of distortions appear or occur? More importantly how would crossing the line be a different space? Is there in fact a different space? How can one step out of ideology? Wouldn’t that in all honesty be just another type of ideology, only another perspective to look at the same space I was standing in, with its own unique blind spots as well? Which isn’t to say it is not worth trying. Indeed, there is something to be appreciated in viewing a space from various perspectives, some special kind of importance to disrupting “business as usual.” In terms of Marxist theory, it makes me question and maybe come to a deeper appreciation of the objects created by humans (that includes ourselves), that they might even hold a certain power that my current ideology might not want me to see for certain dubious reasons. My relationship with objects and labor might be closer to me than I imagine, I might in fact be an object of labor within a certain ideology. Could I be an actual complex person within another? Can I have a choice, and if so what does my choice identification make me into and if not why does a particular ideology need to draw an iron curtain? So for me, right now, Marxist theory has raised questions of identification of persons as objects and objects as ghosts of persons. This connects to the relationship of state identification as related to criminology identification, (a fascinating subject brought up in lecture). As an identified person of a country with certain ideological footholds, is this in some ways a mugshot within another country for the crime of ideology and vice versa? In other words, as an object of a country, which identification tools tend to claim and establish, could this make me a criminal of an ideology when I cross the line? Marx would smile at this conception, I think.

And what does that do for me in terms of dealing with my space? It seems to me that ideology creates a boundary of recognition, of places and perspectives that people have chosen to agree to deal with in a certain way that works for them. The boundary limits but also preserves and so it creates a point at which one can work from. If one removes said boundaries and imaginary points, how does one then recognize where one is at? No, it seems to me that Marx’s table turning and camera obscuras work in that it disrupts. The point is disruption, which brings into question what is the potential behind disruption? In Marxist theory it is to demand recognition by the reigning ideology that I am an object. Changing orientation changes everything sometimes.