在哔站看到了半外围论和中帝论的辩论

远航一号

小王勃士 发表于 2023-6-19 00:40
自由派甚至是一些伪左都很喜欢连篇累牍地攻击中共“威权”、“独裁”、“封建”、“愚昧”，就是为了给“ ...

攻击现在的中资是威权、封建隐含的意思就是，中资的最大问题不是资本主义的问题；只要有了好资本主义，现在中资的问题要么全部解决（自由派），要么大部分解决（亲帝伪左）。

远航一号

井冈山卫士 发表于 2023-6-19 10:34
第三，红色中国网一直坚持中国资产阶级和美国全球化大资产阶级集团是世界反动秩序的两大台柱。因此削弱中 ...

上面这组讨论很有意义

远航一号

井冈山卫士 发表于 2023-6-19 22:02
这个现象其实是其阶级基础的反映。

在我的印象中，文革造反派的部分堕落分子在本世纪初就在宣传“二次革 ...

上面的概括很准确

远航一号

先锋队理论家s 发表于 2023-6-19 22:02
文章我看了写的都不错，必须得有霸权抑制其他国家有点不太赞同，我觉得美国是最后一个超级霸权国家，以中 ...

关于资本主义世界体系离不开霸权：请考虑，一个国家的资本主义能离开资产阶级国家而存在吗？那么，在世界范围，没有世界国家，怎么办？

关于美国霸权衰落的后果：请考虑，资本主义世界体系能不能离开霸权而存在？美国霸权崩溃后，有没有其他国家可以代替美帝？如果没有国家可以代替美帝，有哪些美帝给资本主义世界体系提供的必不可少的功能，无法再维持？

关于各国资产阶级要什么：请注意区别他们口头表达的，与他们真实想要的。有哪些国家资产阶级口头不赞成“和平”？

以上问题都涉及到资本主义的本质，可以从下面文章及有关系列看起：

http://redchinacn.net/portal.php?mod=view&aid=41064

远航一号

先锋队理论家s 发表于 2023-6-19 23:39
这里就有点僵化了吧，一超多强不能变成多强体系，只有一超压住了所有矛盾资本主义才能存活，中俄和大多数 ...

如上，你先考虑了我提出的几个问题，再说

关于资本主义世界体系离不开霸权：请考虑，一个国家的资本主义能离开资产阶级国家而存在吗？那么，在世界范围，没有世界国家，怎么办？

关于美国霸权衰落的后果：请考虑，资本主义世界体系能不能离开霸权而存在？美国霸权崩溃后，有没有其他国家可以代替美帝？如果没有国家可以代替美帝，有哪些美帝给资本主义世界体系提供的必不可少的功能，无法再维持？

远航一号

https://twitter.com/InfraHaz/status/1672279505774448640

这个长系列推文很好地说明了西马对马克思主义的歪曲和从西马到法兰克福学派到后现代的演变。先放在这里，有空再讨论。

§1

Marxism has no reality at all in the West. Nearly all self-proclaimed Marxists are frauds who haven’t even read Marx, let alone understand him. They use the label Marxism, despite knowing nothing about it, as a pseudo-intellectual obfuscation for their liberal ideology.

§2

To begin, what is Marxism?

Marxism is not a theory of equality. It is not a diagnosis of injustice, nor is it a specific prescription of how to remedy society’s ills.

Marxism is a method for acquiring knowledge about the laws governing the historical development of societies.

§3

Marxism thus regards itself as a type of science. Most people think of science as something purely descriptive.

But the reason Marx’s contemporaries called him Prometheus is because he bequeathed a science that did not just describe reality, but participated in its development.

§4

This makes Marxism totally contrary to modern science.

Modern science places knowledge above its object. To know, means to strip something naked to consciousness and turn it into a utility for the knowing subject. He who knows an object, can control, master, and alter an object.

§5

But the ‘object’ known by Marxism is none other than human society itself.

And the paradox lies in the obvious fact that society is not just an object, but also a subject.

Marxists (subjects) are themselves part of the very object they make knowable.

§6

To complicate matters further, Marx does not claim knowledge of society alone can transform society.

Instead, he proves that society is already coming to know and transform itself materially in the form of the then growing proletarian class.

§7

Most people think Marx is ‘Promethean’ because he wanted his ideas popularized. But the REAL reason was because he had the courage of declaring the return of knowledge back to being itself, and human beings in particular.

He created a science that ceased to be above its object.

§8

For Marx, the knowledge of historical laws arrived at by consciousness, was being reflected in history itself.

Knowledge of humanity does not dominate humanity, but reveals that it was there, and part of it all along.

“Communism is the riddle of history solved.”

§9

Why the need for class consciousness?

This is where people misunderstand Leninism as an attempt to turn politics and state power into a tool for realizing some goal of the mind.

In reality, the role of Marxists lies in spreading the ‘good news’ to the despairing proletariat.

§10

Class consciousness, the so-called ‘vanguard party,’ and the Communist state is the realization of the proletariat’s faith in itself.

Communism is not realized ‘automatically’ without the participation of a Communist party because society is not just an object.

§11

Neither just a subject either. Communist parties do not create new societies, only guide the existing development of society.

This guidance is necessary because politics, Communist or otherwise is itself part of material reality.

远航一号

§12

Without the guidance of proletarian consciousness, the movement propelling society still continues.

But it leads to an economic, political, spiritual, moral and overall social crisis. Society eats away at itself as it cannot make sense of the contradictions driving it.

远航一号

§13

The crisis of Western Marxism lies in its inability to overcome the subject/object distinction when it comes to society.

How can society both be a real (material) object, while also given the quality of subjective responsibility? Two responses emerge:

§14

The first cope of Western Marxism is a type of fatalism, which Lenin calls economism.

According to this view, politics is not involved in the revolutionary transformation of society at all, which happens only because of economics, or a spontaneous uprising of the proletariat.

§15

The second (more relevant) is the opposite extreme.

In this view, society must act as a pure subject in the form of institutions (party or otherwise), exterminating every trace of its pre-conscious, and objective material being, recreating all society from scratch.

§16

But both two sides of Western Marxism are incompatible with Marx’s Promethean gesture of suspending knowledge back to being.

In the first, being is upheld entirely independent of knowledge.

In the second, knowledge is asserted over and at the expense of being.

§17

If society will become communist independently of the engaged subjective partisanship of communists, then all you have is the conceit of some subject-in-the-know passively watching their object fulfill the expectations of subjective knowledge.

§18

If communism is just some enlightened consciousness, then what you have are psychotic subjects devoid of any trust that their knowledge is actually based in (non-conscious) reality itself, denouncing the latter as ‘reactionary.’

Knowledge only as ‘subjective self-consciousness.’

§19

The ‘praxis’ uniting thought and practice then is only in the fractal movement of subjective self-consciousness - voluntary ‘action’ becomes the ‘object’ of the subject, who then acts on its basis: ‘object’ takes on the processual quality of yet-to-be fulfilled subjectivity.

§20

This is exactly why
@conceptualjames
places Marxism in the Gnostic tradition: This Western interpretation of Marxism is founded upon a metaphysical distrust for reality.

Because of that distrust, good, virtue, etc. lies only in knowledge as pure subjective self-consciousness.

§21

This Western Marxism has its origins in the neo-Kantian György Lukács, whose seminal work “History and Class Consciousness” was written to resolve the problem the subject/object distinction posed for the Marxist concept of society, class & history.

远航一号

§22

In order to begin, Lukács engaged in an egregious form of revisionism; blaming for Marxism’s commitment to natural realism Fredrich Engels and his "dialectics of nature."23

To Lukács, when Marx referred to objective material reality, he was merely opposing society as a supra-individual horizon of meaning to individual subjectivity. It did not include objective natural reality, which Lukács brackets as irrelevant to Marxism.

§24

Society was ‘objective,’ and consciousness was ‘subjective.’ Their dialectical interaction, for Lukács, was the basis of history itself.

But the material reality outside of social mediation (nature) was irrelevant to, and outside this dialectic, outside history.

§25

The reason I mention Lukács is because Western Marxism was founded on the false view that he resolved the problem of ‘subject/object’ distinction for Marxism.

But he did nothing of that sort, he just changed the definition of objectivity to exclude objective reality itself.

§26

Here, objectivity is just the reified totality of social relations, denied of active subjective responsibility.

This obviously contradicts Marx’s materialism, for which objectivity does include nature, not just society as some purely transcendental horizon.

§27

Without including nature in the definition of material reality, then class-consciousness consists in dissolving all society, in all its objectivity, into a pure subjective self-consciousness. For Lukács, the proletarian class is the first ‘subject-object’ which does exactly this.

§28

This is a gross perversion of Marxism, and it is easy to see the lineage of the Lukácsian view in the Frankfurt School, the New Left, ‘postmodern academia,’ gender studies in Wokeism as a whole.

But is Lukácsian Western Marxism really to blame?

§29

In fact, when Lukács decided to reject Engels, he was just compromising with institutional modern realism.

Engels ‘dialectics of nature’ was too ‘metaphysical’ because it saw something ‘human’ in reality. In other words, the opposite of a metaphysical distrust in reality!

远航一号

§30

In other words, James Lindsay is a fucking moron when he blames wokeism’s metaphysical distrust in reality on Marxism.

In actual fact, the distrust in reality is the very basis of bourgeois modernity.

It can be thought as the entire premise of the Age of Enlightenment itself!