红色中国网

标题: 在哔站看到了半外围论和中帝论的辩论 [打印本页]
作者: 斗日坛主    时间: 2023-6-17 21:22:42     标题: 在哔站看到了半外围论和中帝论的辩论

本帖最后由 远航一号 于 2023-6-17 22:42 编辑

视频BV号：BV1f14y1S7zc
链接：【后苏联土地上残存的火苗——俄罗斯共产主义工人党-哔哩哔哩】 https://b23.tv/ksXJkNV
作者: 斗日坛主    时间: 2023-6-17 21:23:54

这是评论的截图
作者: 斗日坛主    时间: 2023-6-17 21:25:42

斗日坛主 发表于 2023-6-17 21:23
这是评论的截图

在回复里，双方争辩十分激烈，我也从中更深地认识了半外围论。但总的来说持中帝论这一落后立场的网友占多数
作者: 杨坚    时间: 2023-6-17 21:30:51

本帖最后由 杨坚 于 2023-6-17 21:32 编辑

前两天理想者之终焉网友不是还在论坛里求援吗？争论的焦点不是俄罗斯算不算帝国主义吗？
作者: starlight    时间: 2023-6-17 21:31:15

http://redchinacn.net/forum.php? ... &extra=page%3D2前几天刚刚有相关的讨论
作者: 斗日坛主    时间: 2023-6-17 21:33:38

starlight 发表于 2023-6-17 21:31
http://redchinacn.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=27423&extra=page%3D2前几天刚刚有相关的讨论 ...

抱歉没有发现竟然早就讨论过了
作者: 人生无处不青山    时间: 2023-6-18 10:17:54

从哲学的角度来看，我倒觉得教条主义者的”帝国主义论”跟所谓后现代主义的政治哲学很有相像之处。后现代主义的教师爷米歇尔福柯“曾经在他的《主体和权力》（Subject and Power）一文中描述过自己对于古今所有政体形式的看法：这无非都是不同时空下权力的表现形式。人民在医院，学校，军队等国家机关和政治组织中同权力机关接轨，并最终自愿地被主体化成了这一庞然大物的一份子。而我们的帝国主义论者也在今日，”大胆”地断言，所有的帝国主义国家的第一特质就是垄断性。而就像红中网网友所分析的那样，这样的解释的第一引申含义便是当下世界体系论的所有半外围和外围国家都有了一层帝国主义的“原罪”，因为他们的经济体制几乎都是国有资本占大头。不过据学院派的头头们看来，这样的结论倒也没什么大不了的。毕竟“媳妇也是要熬成婆”，第三世界国家终有一天也是要称霸的吗？（这点我倒觉得又跟某些学院派的空想自相矛盾了，他们一直以来歌颂的那些后毛泽东时代的同志们，不也都是出自印共菲共尼泊尔共土耳其共等以第三世界国家为基地的革命组织吗？”）
所以在这里，解构主义者和当代中国的学院派马克思主义者似乎达成了一个有趣的共识。一个是万物皆可被解构，另一个则是万国皆可称霸，万国皆可当帝国主义。一句话，他们都把当下错综复杂的政治局势描述成为了一种极简的模型。
我们马克思主义者认为，政治挂帅当先。换句话说，我们要对一切生活中的产物都报以一种意识形态上的警觉性，并时时刻刻做好批判的准备。那么上述两家的论断，有何意识形态危害呢？
若按解构主义者的话，资本主义体系毫无疑问是体现权力意志的，可一切政治组织都具有这种特性。封建主义的农奴和庄园主是这样的，工厂里的工人和资本家是这样，共产党人展望的的无产阶级专政怕是也是这样的。那么我们又有何意义断言要用共产主义来代替资本主义呢？不如还是继续沉溺在这种以资本家为主导的规训吧。
中帝论者们似乎也在类似的论证中尝到了甜头。俄乌战争便是一个最好的例子。当俄罗斯的资产阶级军队试图要挑战美国的霸权的时候，这些人就跳出来了：这是一场帝国主义战争，是新兴的垄断资本主义俄帝与美帝在争夺世界领导权。无产者没有祖国，不应该支持这一不正义战争中的任何一方。可问题是，若按照他们所说的那样，所有国有资本占主导的国家都具有垄断性，都是帝国主义的话，那么这些国家也就都失去了法理意义上“正当挑战”美帝的权利。这种对先锋队和理想革命者的执念，从现实意义上讲，也就彻底否定了当下对世界资本主义制度扬弃的可能。这样批判的结果便是，我们可以口头上去批评美帝，但我们还是不要去挑战美帝所建立的霸权和世界资本主义秩序吧，因为所有的挑战者都可能代替美帝成为新的霸权。
米歇尔先生是直言不讳的，他从来没有说过自己是个辩证法的信徒。所以他与革命思想的绝缘是可以预见的。而我们的学院派在自诩为马列毛主义信徒的同时，却忽略了辩证法的精髓。这样的反叛，既是可悲的，更是可鄙的。
不过，想到去年那场轰轰烈烈的论战，这样的“学艺不精”似乎也是可以理解的了。毕竟，学马不用学黑吗。
作者: 井冈山卫士    时间: 2023-6-18 12:04:34

人生无处不青山 发表于 2023-6-18 10:17
从哲学的角度来看，我倒觉得教条主义者的”帝国主义论”跟所谓后现代主义的政治哲学很有相像之处。后现代主 ...

欢迎新网友！

可问题是，若按照他们所说的那样，所有国有资本占主导的国家都具有垄断性，都是帝国主义的话，那么这些国家也就都失去了法理意义上“正当挑战”美帝的权利。这种对先锋队和理想革命者的执念，从现实意义上讲，也就彻底否定了当下对世界资本主义制度扬弃的可能。这样批判的结果便是，我们可以口头上去批评美帝，但我们还是不要去挑战美帝所建立的霸权和世界资本主义秩序吧，因为所有的挑战者都可能代替美帝成为新的霸权。


这话说到点子上了。他们在一切抽象的场合肯定革命的话语，但是在一切具体的事件中敌视革命的实质。因为他们自诩的“先锋队”只能在话语真空中才能获得“意识形态霸权”，在一切实际的斗争中都会立刻粉碎。
作者: 人生无处不青山    时间: 2023-6-18 12:34:16

井冈山卫士 发表于 2023-6-18 12:04
欢迎新网友！

所以这也是为什么以阳和平为代表的学院派新毛派抵制未明子的原因。他们对毛主席矛盾论的解释是一种类似道家式二元论的曲解。然而矛盾绝不是他们所说的关于阴和阳的调和与转化，而是善与恶，积极与消极，解放与反动的斗争。就像毛主席在《关于哲学的讲话》所说的那样，这是大鱼吃小鱼的运动模式。由此原则即可推出，美帝要让席于世界人民，美国霸权必须被打碎。
对于阳和平来说，这种运动的充满斗志性的哲学显然是他们所说的中帝论的大敌，也大大地挑战了他们长久以来独占的对毛主义的释经权。
作者: 激活    时间: 2023-6-18 16:03:36

本帖最后由 激活 于 2023-6-18 16:05 编辑
人生无处不青山 发表于 2023-6-18 12:34
所以这也是为什么以阳和平为代表的学院派新毛派抵制未明子的原因。他们对毛主席矛盾论的解释是一种类似道 ...

我说实话，阳和平为代表的学院派还真可能没你想的那么仔细，他们就是想要长久以来独占毛主义的释经权。遇到了试图挑战他们这一释经权的学说，自然不满意要出击。现在看来前段时间跟右派的芬兰事件，他们不出声也就能理解了
作者: 人生无处不青山    时间: 2023-6-18 20:00:43

激活 发表于 2023-6-18 16:03
我说实话，阳和平为代表的学院派还真可能没你想的那么仔细，他们就是想要长久以来独占毛主义的释经权。遇 ...

而且这种出击只针对“左圈”里面的里面跟他们意识形态相近的人（虽然他们自己不这么想）。阳对于这几年网络上右派对左派的攻击几乎没怎么回应过。
作者: 爱琳娜    时间: 2023-6-18 23:48:40

当局的产业升级、制造业2025、大国重器这些噱头没把自由派右派唬住，反倒是让国内的左派深信不疑。我只是好奇他们究竟是觉得当局先进还是落后呢？
作者: 爱琳娜    时间: 2023-6-19 00:07:39

中帝论能这么有市场我看主要还是，首先中特四十多年的顺风顺水让国内的左翼严重误判了形势，过分高估了中资的实力。其次绝大多数的学院派左翼早已脱离生产脱离群众，平日只看到了中资在纸面上的各种漂亮数据，而没有在生产的一线中看到中特的金玉其外败絮其中。最后中特因为各种原因名义上仍保留了数量庞大的国有企业，而国内的绝大多数左翼并不能正确的分析这些“国企”在经济中的作用从而无法准确的分析出它们的性质，把维稳的工具当做了争霸的利器。
总的来说，中帝论是一种静止的形而上学的缺乏实践的观点。不过随着中特的盛极而衰，相信中帝论也会逐渐的失去市场。
作者: 小王勃士    时间: 2023-6-19 00:40:27

爱琳娜 发表于 2023-6-18 23:48
当局的产业升级、制造业2025、大国重器这些噱头没把自由派右派唬住，反倒是让国内的左派深信不疑。我只是好 ...

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“中帝论”开条后路。强则中国称帝，弱则中共傻X。
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-19 01:13:52

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）。
作者: 先锋队理论家s    时间: 2023-6-19 10:06:07

本帖最后由 先锋队理论家s 于 2023-6-19 10:10 编辑

所以这里的问题在于俩种理论都有缺陷，俩者都没有吸收对方观点得有益之处，现在所谓的世界体系，还不是真正的自由资本体系，美国保留了民族垄断帝国主义时期的一些东西，凡事以美国为中心，自由大于公平正义人权，而以俄中为首的后来者，为了建立真正的自由多极化资本体系挑战美式世界体系，是由一定的进步意义，但是我们需要注意，在保持资本主义制度，和消灭所谓极端共产党这点上，美中俄是有共识的。所以说暂时的进步，不代表可以掩饰他们的反动本质。半外围理论者和中帝理论者都只强调一方面，那都是错误的。
作者: 井冈山卫士    时间: 2023-6-19 10:23:32

本帖最后由 井冈山卫士 于 2023-6-19 23:37 编辑
先锋队理论家s 发表于 2023-6-19 10:06
所以这里的问题在于俩种理论都有缺陷，俩者都没有吸收对方观点得有益之处，现在所谓的世界体系，还不是真正 ...

感谢回帖。

事实上，你的回复里面有诸多纠缠在一起的问题。我在这里试图一一阐述。

第一，你说“俩者都没有吸收对方观点得有益之处”。马列毛指导下的世界体系理论是对列宁帝国主义论的发展，“中帝论”是对列宁帝国主义理论的滥用和对现实的无视。从两者的基本性质出发，是不存在“吸收”对方基本观点的可能性的。“中帝论”想要“吸收”马列毛指导下的世界体系理论，就意味着自我毁灭。马列毛指导下的世界体系理论已经吸收了列宁帝国主义论的“有益之处”。故而不需要再从“中帝论”那里“吸收”什么。
作者: 井冈山卫士    时间: 2023-6-19 10:28:15

先锋队理论家s 发表于 2023-6-19 10:06
所以这里的问题在于俩种理论都有缺陷，俩者都没有吸收对方观点得有益之处，现在所谓的世界体系，还不是真正 ...

第二，资本主义世界体系从来不是“自由”的体系，而是由霸权国家主导的核心-半外围-外围的剥削关系。俄罗斯击溃美帝霸权的进步性体现在它直接瓦解支撑世界体系运转的霸权结构，从而打破世界资产阶级之间相互支援的关系，为中国和世界革命创造条件。

关于霸权问题，可以参考：
http://www.redchinacn.net/portal.php?mod=view&aid=41594
http://www.redchinacn.net/portal.php?mod=view&aid=48132
http://www.redchinacn.net/portal.php?mod=view&aid=41646

关于世界体系，可以参考：
http://www.redchinacn.net/portal.php?mod=view&aid=41187
作者: 小王勃士    时间: 2023-6-19 10:29:14

先锋队理论家s 发表于 2023-6-19 10:06
所以这里的问题在于俩种理论都有缺陷，俩者都没有吸收对方观点得有益之处，现在所谓的世界体系，还不是真正 ...

半外围论本来就是对资本主义世界体系的讨论，不需要靠吸收（缝合）中帝论来强调资产阶级国家共同的反动本质，事实上中帝论除了把资本主义国家一股脑打上帝国主义标签之外，就没再有什么“贡献”了，而这种做法如楼上所说，甚至维护了真正的帝国主义。
作者: 井冈山卫士    时间: 2023-6-19 10:34:48

本帖最后由 远航一号 于 2023-6-19 23:17 编辑
先锋队理论家s 发表于 2023-6-19 10:06
所以这里的问题在于俩种理论都有缺陷，俩者都没有吸收对方观点得有益之处，现在所谓的世界体系，还不是真正 ...

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。因此削弱中国资产阶级就是削弱美国资产阶级，削弱美国资产阶级也是削弱中国资产阶级。这也是我们为何认为特朗普运动与中国无产阶级革命存在配合作战趋势的原因。

相反，中帝论者则乞怜于美国和北约的“天兵”下凡，“神罚”中国国家机器，赠予他们资产阶级政治自由和民主，好方便他们与中国资产阶级分享政治权力。从根本意义上讲，他们既不反美国资产阶级，也不反中国资产阶级，他们反的仅仅是阻挠他们将自己的专业技能和“政治才华”变现为经济和政治利益的中国国家机器而已。这也是他们对劳动人民哪怕是最朴素的爱国情感都要诅咒怒骂，再踩上一万只脚的原因。
作者: 井冈山卫士    时间: 2023-6-19 10:45:09

先锋队理论家s 发表于 2023-6-19 10:06
所以这里的问题在于俩种理论都有缺陷，俩者都没有吸收对方观点得有益之处，现在所谓的世界体系，还不是真正 ...

希望我的解释能有所帮助。
作者: 火烈鸟    时间: 2023-6-19 17:10:36

帝国孝子们搬出列宁来做挡箭牌就想否定中帝路线？那是妄想。列宁的帝国主义论那是中了黑格尔的毒，用阶段论来故意遮蔽帝国主义的真正核心思想——独裁者的大一统开疆拓土野心。历史上的德帝、日帝已经被打败，苏帝已经完蛋，俄帝正在失败，而中帝也正在朝这条路上狂奔。主帖对福柯的解读一窍不通，所以只能牵强附会，自作聪明，得出的结论自然也是贻笑大方。
作者: starlight    时间: 2023-6-19 17:27:56

本帖最后由 starlight 于 2023-6-19 17:32 编辑
火烈鸟 发表于 2023-6-19 17:10
帝国孝子们搬出列宁来做挡箭牌就想否定中帝路线？那是妄想。列宁的帝国主义论那是中了黑格尔的毒，用阶段论 ...

活生生的例子就跳出来了昨天“天下皆帝”，今天“除美皆独裁”，什么嘴脸大家都看清了
作者: 杨坚    时间: 2023-6-19 17:58:20

火烈鸟 发表于 2023-6-19 17:10
帝国孝子们搬出列宁来做挡箭牌就想否定中帝路线？那是妄想。列宁的帝国主义论那是中了黑格尔的毒，用阶段论 ...

纯纯左皮自由派，和那些高校公知们的高论没什么区别，一谈到俄罗斯就是独裁专制，欧美就是自由民主，甚至说什么俄罗斯自古以来就是侵略成性。还有所谓的苏帝又是什么，又是你智商高达250的脑子里yy出来的吧
作者: 小王勃士    时间: 2023-6-19 17:58:21

starlight 发表于 2023-6-19 17:27
活生生的例子就跳出来了昨天“天下皆帝”，今天“除美皆独裁”，什么嘴脸大家都看清了
...

我原以为“垄断加资本输出等于帝国”已经“天下无敌”，这位“独裁加对外扩张等于帝国”又是谁的“悍将”？这连经济标准都不是了，纯主观标准都出来了。

更有意思的是，按这个标准，面对自家小岛都畏畏缩缩的中国是最不帝国的了。难道他也相信什么2035高铁到台湾？
作者: 井冈山卫士    时间: 2023-6-19 21:26:52

杨坚 发表于 2023-6-19 17:58
纯纯左皮自由派，和那些高校公知们的高论没什么区别，一谈到俄罗斯就是独裁专制，欧美就是自由民主，甚至 ...

这就看出来“中帝论”的堕落轨迹。

最初虽然是滥用列宁，但好歹是严肃的滥用。

后来演变为对“反动性”的一般代指，即对反动事物的情绪化表达。

现在好了，反动不反动都无所谓了，只要是没有政治自由和形式民主，阻止了他们参加资产阶级政权，那么你就是“独裁者的大一统开疆拓土野心”。

“中帝论”生于滥用，继于发泄，最终失去了全部意义。“中帝论”者最终也在事实和阶级本能中选择了后者。

前些年自由派在意识形态领域的衰落超过了其阶级基础绝望化应有的程度。现在看来，绝大多数妄图依靠资本主义世界体系，尤其是新自由主义实现自己经济和政治利益的边缘化小资产阶级，将会以“左皮自由派”，而不是纯种自由派的方式出现。
作者: 杨坚    时间: 2023-6-19 21:41:08

井冈山卫士 发表于 2023-6-19 21:26
这就看出来“中帝论”的堕落轨迹。

最初虽然是滥用列宁，但好歹是严肃的滥用。

井冈山同志看问题总是入木三分，吾辈楷模。就像你说的以公知为代表的自由派虽然在大众媒体上销声匿迹了，但他们的阶级基础却不会消失，有部分混入左翼的自由派的就会以各种形式将自己的阶级利益表现出来，比如他们鼓吹的中帝论等，而在俄乌战争这件事情上甚至形成了“左自合流”的态势，这些人是什么成分不言自明
作者: 先锋队理论家s    时间: 2023-6-19 22:02:22

本帖最后由 先锋队理论家s 于 2023-6-19 22:34 编辑
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 ...

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，以中俄为首的抵制美国颜色革命的泛统一战线联盟更受大多数国家欢迎，要求联合国权利多元化，而不是单一霸权或者两元对抗，世界体系之分，忽略了一个事，美国二战扶持其他核心国家是为了对抗苏联，苏联解体之后，美国宣布永远不允许出现可以跟美国实力对等的国家，所以美国可以打击出卖任何国家，美国的体系只有一个绝对核心，就是美国自己，所以那些支持美国霸权的附庸核心国家，一直强调都是共同价值观渲染不愿意给美国当狗的都是坏蛋独裁者，他们是美帝的代言人，是美帝最忠心的奴仆。

中美是世界台柱子这点我也不太认同，实际上世界资本体系的扛把子只有美国，和羡慕美国生活的各个国家的大资产阶级们，现在这些各国大资产阶级们，不赞同美国的单一真理了要求各国都有真理应该按照自己的传统文化来独立发展自己的国家，他们要求共享权利，这也是沙特愿意在中国帮助下和解的原因。俄乌冲突中大多数国家都要求和平对话，而不是制裁和拱火，美国扶持的软弱的其他附庸核心国家大资产阶级内部也是争论很大，但是我赞同美国的霸权确实在不可避免的衰落，但是我认为，会迎来一个资产阶级多极化的局面，我的论点就在于中俄现在的政策是暂时相同的都是要求多极化，不干涉他国内政，独立发展。共享人类科技经济繁荣，很受大多数国家支持欢迎。
作者: 井冈山卫士    时间: 2023-6-19 22:02:23

杨坚 发表于 2023-6-19 21:41
井冈山同志看问题总是入木三分，吾辈楷模。就像你说的以公知为代表的自由派虽然在大众媒体上销声匿迹了， ...

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“二次革命论”，即先搞资产阶级民主革命（帮马云、任志强夺权），然后再搞社会主义革命。

在本世纪的第二个十年，以清华北大左翼学生组织头目和其实际操控者逐渐命令这些组织放弃了对私有化和私人资本家的批判，把攻击中心放在了“国企垄断”。

在近五到八年，教条主义者和宗派主义者借着“中帝论”的错误思想，开始煞有介事地批判“国家主义”，把矛头指向劳动人民朴素的爱国主义和正义感。

在2020年，激流网等在“方方事件”中则直接站到了反动知识分子一方。

现在则是左皮自由派的亲帝、亲北约、亲纳粹、亲新自由主义的公开化。

所以，只要自由派的阶级基础没有被消灭，自由派的意识形态会通过各种“话语”自己再生产出来。在20年前他们中的部分人一度表现为“民国粉”这种假民族主义者，今天则表现为“左”派。

小资产阶级成为左派需要背叛自己的阶级利益，即背叛在新自由主义中获取利益，做“人上人”的可能性。一切不愿意背叛阶级利益，仍然要做“人上人”的倾向，无论说着什么语言，最终都会在俄乌战争等重点问题上对劳动人民打黑枪。
作者: 先锋队理论家s    时间: 2023-6-19 22:42:59

本帖最后由 先锋队理论家s 于 2023-6-19 22:47 编辑
井冈山卫士 发表于 2023-6-19 10:28
第二，资本主义世界体系从来不是“自由”的体系，而是由霸权国家主导的核心-半外围-外围的剥削关系。俄罗 ...

美国剥削关系体系是各国大资产阶级认同并且支持的，同胞们被奴役，不妨碍大资产阶级过奢侈生活。而且美国对比苏联对各个国家的控制没有苏联那么狠，所以大家支持美国打垮了苏联，彻底埋葬了共运，但是美国成了唯一霸主之后吃相确实越来越难看了，引来大多数大资产阶级国家的反抗，我也赞同俄罗斯有进步意义，打垮了单一霸权体系，一超没了，不代表不会形成多强体系。大多数国家统治阶级都希望大多数民众有饭吃，不反抗他们，他们可以安心过奢侈生活。享受人类最先进的科技，所以他们愿意支持中俄推动真正的自由贸易世界体系，实现文明制度的多元化。
作者: 先锋队理论家s    时间: 2023-6-19 22:47:50

井冈山卫士 发表于 2023-6-19 10:45
希望我的解释能有所帮助。

特别有帮助，帮我补充了不少知识。
作者: 杨坚    时间: 2023-6-19 22:52:29

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 ...
中美是世界台柱子这点我也不太认同，实际上世界资本体系的扛把子只有美国，和羡慕美国生活的各个国家的大资产阶级们
没有中国这个世界工厂的向核心国家输送大量超额剩余价值，哪有欧美资产阶级及工人贵族们吃香喝辣的生活，中国实际上支撑了世界资本主义体系的物质生产，还有中国庞大的产业后备军也在一定程度上限制了核心国家工人的斗争能力
作者: 先锋队理论家s    时间: 2023-6-19 22:57:48

本帖最后由 先锋队理论家s 于 2023-6-19 22:58 编辑
杨坚 发表于 2023-6-19 22:52
没有中国这个世界工厂的向核心国家输送大量超额剩余价值，哪有欧美资产阶级及工人贵族们吃香喝辣的生活 ...

中国大资产阶级出卖同胞不是很正常嘛，我已经指出来了，同胞被奴役，不妨碍各国大资产阶级享受豪华生活，所以各国大资产阶级的利益在一定时期是相同的。
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-19 23:18:22

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
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-19 23:20:41

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
作者: 先锋队理论家s    时间: 2023-6-19 23:23:48

本帖最后由 先锋队理论家s 于 2023-6-19 23:29 编辑
井冈山卫士 发表于 2023-6-19 10:23
感谢回帖。

事实上，你的回复里面有诸多纠缠在一起的问题。我在这里试图一一阐述。

我的意思在于，革命要强调世界体系，但是也要注意资产阶级得反动性，现在的印度马列毛共产党以前就吃过印度大资产阶级的亏以为他们真心谈判结果牺牲了自己的好同志付出了惨重的代价，不维护资本体系的马克思共产党是大资产阶级的打击目标。
   哈哈哈，我觉得你说得对。我忘了，赤眉他们继承的是文革时期打倒一切的极左主义精神。确实不会像你那么容易接受理论修正，你是比较进步的。
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-19 23:30:23

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
作者: 先锋队理论家s    时间: 2023-6-19 23:32:23

井冈山卫士 发表于 2023-6-19 21:26
这就看出来“中帝论”的堕落轨迹。

最初虽然是滥用列宁，但好歹是严肃的滥用。

滥用这个词不准确，应该是俩个凡是太严重。不注意接受资产主义好的理论，辩证法是僵化的，实际上不管是马克思还是列宁毛泽东都强调辩证接受资本国家的好理论，在融入无产阶级革命理论里。
作者: 先锋队理论家s    时间: 2023-6-19 23:39:09

本帖最后由 先锋队理论家s 于 2023-6-19 23:46 编辑
远航一号 发表于 2023-6-19 23:30
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 ...

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，中俄和大多数第三国家又不是否定五常体系，只不过是要把话语权转成多国，镇压武装夺取政权这一点，其他四常是有共识的，可以绕过联合国决议的。中国顶多默认呗，各国文明制度多元化不争论，世界贸易照常进行，五常还会帮忙稳固各国统治阶级的统治，不让造成灾民逃荒。
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-19 23:45:07

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？
作者: 西红柿收割机    时间: 2023-6-19 23:50:54

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 ...

如果没有霸权，那资本主义世界体系就不存在了，就比如说，美国长期依靠它的贸易逆差来购买外围国家的出口产品，这种“外需”就促进了外围国家的出口部门发展，进而带动整个世界经济的发展，而中国就是其中最重要的贸易顺差大国，但因为美帝衰退了，不能跟以前那样生猛带着拉动，所以中国就变成了美国这个火车头后面的第二节动力车厢，中国实际上对其他很多国家都是贸易逆差，等于是美国带着中国，中国带着其他外围国家。用世界体系论来描述，这种就是半外围国家服从于核心国家领导下的全球资本主义秩序，并且半外围国家在其势力范围内将这一秩序固化到更多的外围国家。
作者: 先锋队理论家s    时间: 2023-6-19 23:54:26

本帖最后由 先锋队理论家s 于 2023-6-19 23:56 编辑
远航一号 发表于 2023-6-19 23:45
如上，你先考虑了我提出的几个问题，再说

你认为现在的这种霸权体系就是资本主义的不变的形态？就像一国资本败给了美式自由体系，美式自由体系凭什么不能被其他资本体系取代，你忽略了联合国，忽略了五常体系，我们都认为真正的自由资本体系没有来，所以我跟你们的看法相反的就是，我认为会有一段真正的自由资本体系出现。
作者: 先锋队理论家s    时间: 2023-6-20 00:00:07

本帖最后由 先锋队理论家s 于 2023-6-20 00:10 编辑
西红柿收割机 发表于 2023-6-19 23:50
如果没有霸权，那资本主义世界体系就不存在了，就比如说，美国长期依靠它的贸易逆差来购买外围国家的出口 ...

俄罗斯中国，只是让美国做事，不要独断专行，可没说不要世界资本体系，他们要的是多极化，大多数大资产阶级主政的国家，要求的是美国不折腾他们，就跟邓小平那样一心发展享受。不争论不指责。   世界资本剥削体系对大资产阶级享受是有益的，他们只是不能忍受，以美式标准来要求他们怎么做，他们更想各自发展自己的文明制度求同存异，共享人类的先进科技成果，才是这些大资产阶级追求的。
作者: 守门老鸨    时间: 2023-6-20 02:48:04     标题: RE: 在哔站看到了半外围论和中帝论的辩论

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 ...

我记得有一个神神叨叨的苏拉密，不知道什么后台，十年前红中网也许还驳斥过这一流“砸船论”，乌有“保党救国”失败后的一股思潮。

民社、砸船论，从现在看来还是扶不上墙。倒是民族主义皮、工业党皮的自由派，这一路越来越成气候了，我几年前没想到。现在有个黑色枪骑兵，就成天叫嚣“你们失业不还是不肯进厂”，“大学生毕业啥也不会，失业活该”“来场经济危机把没钱的人都逼进厂，经济就解决了”之类的。左派民族主义圈子里出了这类败类，我多少年前想都想不到
作者: 井冈山卫士    时间: 2023-6-20 02:50:41

守门老鸨 发表于 2023-6-20 02:48
我记得有一个神神叨叨的苏拉密，不知道什么后台，十年前红中网也许还驳斥过这一流“砸船论”，乌有“保党 ...

你是十几年红色中国网龄的老网友了，我那时候还不知道红色中国网。

这个“砸船论”和后来的“加速主义”有无相似之处？
作者: 井冈山卫士    时间: 2023-6-20 02:52:25

先锋队理论家s 发表于 2023-6-19 23:54
你认为现在的这种霸权体系就是资本主义的不变的形态？就像一国资本败给了美式自由体系，美式自由体系凭什 ...

事实上，自由资本主义和自由市场一样，都是高度脱离现实的不当抽象。资本主义过去、现在、未来都不是自由的。没有霸权国家，资本主义就不会稳定存在。
作者: 守门老鸨    时间: 2023-6-20 03:09:52

井冈山卫士 发表于 2023-6-20 02:50
你是十几年红色中国网龄的老网友了，我那时候还不知道红色中国网。

这个“砸船论”和后来的“加速主义” ...

也许吧，不过民社你懂的，都带着一股“美国再坏也比苏联强”的味道
作者: ∀与∃    时间: 2023-6-20 06:07:17

本帖最后由 ∀与∃ 于 2024-1-26 08:57 编辑
先锋队理论家s 发表于 2023-6-20 00:00
俄罗斯中国，只是让美国做事，不要独断专行，可没说不要世界资本体系，他们要的是多极化，大多数大资产阶 ...

俄罗斯与中国，两者在关键的经济命脉方面，是完全不同的。俄罗斯丝毫不担心新自由主义旧秩序的崩溃（甚至还在主动推动崩溃），而中资则完全相反，如果旧秩序崩溃，可能就威胁生命了。因此，将两者放到同一个立场看待，其实不妥当。中资当局到底要不要求“多极化”，其实不好说吧？世界如果真的走向红中网所预料的“多极化”未来，中资未必好过。

中资当局还是更愿意维持旧秩序的。而俄罗斯正为之努力的“多极化”道路，正破坏着这个旧秩序。也就是说，“多极化”与否，中资当局其实是无所谓的，甚至是不改变才好。还是那句话，不要看他说什么，要去看他做什么。口头上反对“一极”、“霸权”，实际上正维护着旧霸权、旧秩序也说不定。归根结底，俄罗斯和中资的长期目的，是完全不同的。

服从“大重启”意味着中国资产阶级人口中的绝大部分要么被消灭，要么不再作为资产阶级存在。服从“多极化”意味着中国资产阶级中从事出口加工制造业的主流部分将注定先是被隔绝在现存核心国家市场之外，然后被欧亚大陆体系中其他国家的进口替代工业化政策挤出现存的外围和半外围国家市场。相比较而言，向中国革命投降反而有可能是较好的结局。

关于俄罗斯与中资当局长期目的、前进道路的不同，详情请看：
http://www.redchinacn.net/portal.php?mod=view&aid=50965
http://redchinacn.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=25908&extra=&page=1
作者: ∀与∃    时间: 2023-6-20 06:24:42

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 ...

关于红中网为什么认为“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”，可以看看：
http://redchinacn.net/portal.php?mod=view&aid=51160

在1993-2002年期间，美国经济增长曾经一度占到了世界经济增长的46%。在受到2008-2009年世界经济危机的打击以后，美国经济陷入停滞。在2001-2010年期间，中国经济对世界经济增长的贡献第一次超过了美国。在2011-2020年的十年中，中国经济增长占到了世界经济增长的46%。不过，到了2013-2022年的十年中，中国经济增长对世界经济增长的贡献下降到了38%。

值得注意的是，自2011年以来，美国经济增长占世界经济增长的比例也在趋于上升。2013-2022年，美国经济增长占世界经济增长的比例为34%。中、美两国合计，占有了过去十年世界经济增长的70%以上；而占世界人口总数近五分之四的世界其他各国仅获得世界经济增长的不到30%。这说明，美国和中国资本主义是当前世界资本主义矛盾的中心，也是国际资产阶级反动统治的两个主要堡垒。
作者: 激活    时间: 2023-6-23 19:48:19

先锋队理论家s 发表于 2023-6-19 23:54
你认为现在的这种霸权体系就是资本主义的不变的形态？就像一国资本败给了美式自由体系，美式自由体系凭什 ...

世界上哪有其他体系能做到现今美国体系做到的事情呢？美国长期依靠它的贸易逆差来购买外围国家的出口产品，这种“外需”就促进了外围国家的出口部门发展，进而带动整个世界经济的发展 要是美国霸权明确倒塌了，世界上哪个国家、组织能变相的做美国做的事情？从现在来看是没有的
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:02:00

本帖最后由 远航一号 于 2023-6-24 10:04 编辑

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.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:04:53

§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.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:05:38

§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.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:06:11

§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!
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:06:41

§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!
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:07:41

§31

In the realm of science: Metaphysical distrust in reality takes the form of distrust in our conventions, intuitions, religious beliefs, and sensibilities about the nature of reality.

Reality is a pure OUTSIDE only accessed by cold, indifferent, impersonal inquiry.

§32

In the realm of politics: Metaphysical distrust in reality takes the form of distrust in traditional sovereign authority, regarding it as unjust, arbitrary, and tyrannical.

Sovereigns must be legitimated by some explicitly abstract constitutional or democratic procedure.

§33

Wokeness is just the applying it to the realm of culture, where the unwritten norms of civilization secretly disguise relationships of injustice, oppression, and marginalization - by virtue of not being premised by expressly consensual, rational, etc. consciousness.

§34

In bourgeois modernity, only what is in the sphere of explicit responsibility of conscious subjects can be ‘trusted.’

Any recognition of humanity in reality itself is no different than a superstition: Reality is arbitrary, meaningless, and malign. Only institutions are Good.

§35

The madness of bourgeois capitalism, which alienates mankind from its material being, is the true culprit behind the Woke phenomena, NOT Marxism.

All Lukács did was make Marxism compatible with bourgeois institutions. The original problem is the bourgeoisie itself.

§36

The Gnostic, occultist, and alchemical origins of the bourgeois enlightenment are abundantly clear. Lindsay accuses of Marxism, what is in fact THE FOUNDATION OF LIBERALISM!

Marxism is the exact OPPOSITE of this bourgeois conceit of knowledge (gnosis), formalism, and wokeness.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:08:09

§37

In Marxism, the highest aim of knowledge is to give way to reality. This entails a great trust in material being - anything of importance arrived at by knowledge, is already reconciled within material reality itself.

The paradox is that this ‘giving way’ is a necessary act
of consciousness.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:08:51

§38

Lukács’ response to this paradox revised Marxism itself. But even if Lukács were to be rejected, the problem remains.

Furthermore, what is really the problem with Lukács’s revision, anyway? Exploring that reveals the way to a better solution.

§39

As we have shown, the idea of communism as a pure subjective self-consciousness, is based on the notion that objectivity is just reified social relations. This naturally begs the question of what the content of these social relations consists in, as so far they are only pure form

§40

Marxism is historical materialism, and Communism is just the practical application of historical materialism, via the class-conscious (historical-materialism conscious) proletariat, to society itself. But what does that say about the nature of society in the first place?

§41

It means society is an indescribable ‘totality’ of individual mental states, opinions, and beliefs, - the objectivity of social relationships, is merely a result of the subjective mind ‘reifying’ segments of the totality and treating them as external realities in themselves.

§42

Thus here, society has no real determinate content - it is a pure ‘Kantian Thing-in-Itself,’ a mere totality of individual relations that only asserts its existence negatively, via the reification (‘objectivization’) of its constituent parts.

§43

This means that material relations of production are rooted in reified mental states, not material reality. Consciousness of them (plus action) would dissolve them.

Material society is then defined by ‘that which subjective consciousness has not yet assumed responsibility for!’

§44

Having rejected any specific form of being as *necessarily* material, including nature, it is only upon failing to render the Totality fully transparent that consciousness may renunciate its aspiration to dissolve everything in itself.

Totality is the Lukácsian sublime.

§45

The Totality of individual relations in the form of History, or Society, constitutes a type of absolute objectivity which is not merely a reification - but the free, continuous and holistic content of every possible experience, mental state, and subjectivity.

§46

A totality cannot assume self-consciousness, since it cannot be confined to any one self. So that is simply the end of Scientific Socialism: The only thing that can really be known about society, is that nothing at all can be known. This is no more knowledge than Kant’s Thing.

§47

Subject-Object distinction reemerges, only now between a subjective self-consciousness (in the form of Party, institutions, etc) rendering transparent and assuming responsibility for all determinations of society and the Totality of relations as the supremely impenetrable object.

§48

So we are back to square one, and none wiser in answering:

1. To what extent is society (including all relations of production) itself objective?

2. To what extent is Communism merely a subjective consciousness?

These are the most fundamental questions of Western Marxism.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:10:13

§49

I place special emphasis on Western Marxism, since these questions are obvious within the framework of the experience of Marxism-Leninism. There, the question of the objectivity of society, and Communism, were answered practically: In the Soviet Avant-Garde and in the GPCR.

§50

Both of these events ran upon the objective limits of their underlying aspirations, and the wisdom of Marxism-Leninism - whether in Socialism in One Country or in Deng Xiaopings Reform and Opening Up - defined itself in relation to that experience.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:12:22

§51

Moreover, Marxism-Leninism is defined within the context of countries where the question of society and the individual is resolved in the concrete bonds of civilization, bonds which were never questioned even at the height of revolutionary experimentation.

§52

In the comparatively atomized West, it is not at all clear to people to what extent society is objective, or to what extent ideas are subjective, even outside Marxist theory. Modern Western thinking doubts absolutely everything about society, even the definition of gender.

§53

The very distinction between subject and object itself is not at all clear in Western society, which is extremely sensitive to algorithmically-driven shifts in culture. Even scientific consensus is (rightfully) called into question, while expert opinion disguises itself as fact.

§54

In contrast to Lukács notion of reification, the real problem with the subject-object distinction cannot but appear to be rooted in the notion of objective Being implied by it, as totally purified of human quality. Despite that in reality, all objects appear somehow tainted by it

§55

When the thinking consciousness is entirely divided from reality, as pure spirit, soul, mind, or cogito - what remains of reality is completely meaningless, and devoid of any moral, historical, spiritual, or human significance.

How could that square with Marx’s view bellow?

作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:13:15

§56

Marxists as early as Plekhanov have also opted for regressing into Spinozism as a means to resolve the problem, where subject and object collapse into the supreme Substance. In this way thinking consciousness is the mere attribute of Substance: the most fundamental form of Being.

§57

Soviet Philosopher Ilyenkov, goes so far as to draw out speculative cosmological implications of this view, according to which thought arises as a necessary attribute of matter to prevent the heat death of the universe, by initiating a conscious cosmic catastrophe to reset it.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:13:59

§58

The problem with Spinozism is not the view that mind and matter (‘subject and object’) share reality, but in the notion of reality as ‘Substance:’ a metaphysical view of the object already united with its subjective determinations. Substance thus has no stake in its attributes.

§59

This is just one of the ways of ‘resolving’ the problem by denying it all together: Substance is mere objectivity given Form by the mind. Substance is treated as supreme, antecedent, and given, but it is the repository of a dogmatic subjective determination, not true objectivity.

§60

The Marxist-Spinozist view cannot ground the origins of proletarian consciousness, Marxism, and the Communist party in reality - it represses its own origins, and pretends these arise in perfect continuity with the self-same Substance, effectively gaslighting itself.

§61

This view does not arise from any necessary procedure of thought, experience, or relation to the world. It is a metaphysical view that does not pay for itself in any way - it is an insight that cannot itself be reproduced materially, a pure dogmatism of the mind.

§62

There never comes the decisive gesture of Marx of renouncing knowledge to suspend it back into Being - Substance is the conceit of a knowledge that already inheres in Being, perfectly continuous with the intellect which at no point runs upon the limit of its pretentions.

§63

In practice, it becomes a type of ideological hubris, asserting the unreality and meaninglessness of every actually substantive bond of civilization, in favor of a supreme ‘Substance’ that has neither any skin of its own in the game, nor any reality outside a calcified intellect.

§64

More importantly, it renders Scientific Socialism into a metaphysical dogma, incapable of deriving concrete knowledge of concrete social reality. No specificity of societal objectivity is possible - everything is just ‘capitalism’ permeating the whole of its ‘attributes.’

§65

It is obvious that if ‘everything’ is objective, then nothing in particular is, including society itself. The extent of society’s objectivity is the extent it is continuous with a dogma of the mind. It is no wonder Spinoza is the favorite thinker of pseudo-Marxist academia!

§66

Spinozism is categorically incompatible with Marxism for no other reason than that its foundations make impossible insight into laws governing historical development, and the particular qualitative character of societies. It could not possibly constitute any class-consciousness.

§67

Specifically, it cannot afford any recognition of the objectivity of contradictions (such as the class struggle). In the stead of the objectivity of class struggle lies a pure subjectivist ‘will to immanence,’ a notion of communism as antisocial as Lukácsian “self-consciousness.”

§68

The scholastic concept Substance does not resolve the object-subject distinction (the principal theoretical problem of Western Marxism), but only conceals it. For the 100+ years Western Marxism has confused it with Marx’s materialism, Marxism was condemned metaphysical languish.

§69

It suffices only to recall Marx’s own apt view of Spinoza: A metaphysically disguised objectivity which excludes the objectivity of man, and therefore the socius relevant for Marx’s own materialism.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:14:44

§70

Marxism succeeded in overcoming metaphysics, but only within a limited scope of practice. That is namely in the investigations of Marx in Capital, the writings of Fredrich Engels and the concrete historical experience of Marxism-Leninism.

§71

Marx and Engels failed to fully transmit their theoretical genius. Lenin alone inherited it, and gave it practical reality. The genius of Marxism survived as the genius of world-historical statesmen and civilizations, but its original spark of consciousness was lost.

§72

Marxism-Leninism emerged as a type of phronesis, whose advanced outlook was established by the context of the concrete historical experience of Communism. Not strictly a matter of theoretical intellect, but also a type of advanced sensibility based on practical reality.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:15:40

§73

Marx’s Promethean gesture acquired objective reality and history exclusively outside the West, where objectivity of society was not metaphysical question, but a given reality. And the problem of metaphysics permeated the whole of Western thinking, not just Western Marxism.

§74

For Marxism to be meaningful in the West, it cannot ignore this problem, for when it does, it always remains trapped within it anyway, inevitably regressing materialist objectivity from practical Scientific Socialism into the scholastic Kantian or Spinozist frame.

§75

In the case of Kantianism (as in Lukács), proletarian objectivity dissolves in the subjectivism of social-dem institutions. In Spinozism, it becomes an intellectual conceit devoid of skin in the game. Revisionism, opportunism, and defeatism are the certain conclusion of both.

§76

The object in the form of ‘capitalism’ - whether as Thing or Substance - becomes so overwhelming and insurmountable, that the comparative weakness of Marxist subjectivity takes in. The paranoiac spectre of ‘fascism’ reflects a consciousness always in retreat before its object.

§77

And hardly anything could affirm that paranoia more than the fact that the thinker who finally initiated the revolution that would emancipate the Western mind from bourgeois metaphysics once and for all, is nearly equally infamous for their affiliation to German Nazism.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:16:33

§78

Originally a student of Husserl and the phenomenological school, Martin Heidegger inadvertently lays the foundation for a complete rediscovery of Marx, emancipating Western thought from its metaphysical shackles and opening the way for a truly consistent materialist outlook.

§79

Heidegger elects to orient thought to an origin more fundamental than can be contained within the frame of the reductionist ‘res cogitans/'extensa’ or ‘subject/object’ distinction, and that is toward Being as such. This is the beginning of what is popularly called ontology.

§80

For Heidegger, Being as such pre-exists the classification, categorization, utilization, etc. of particular beings by thought. It is the ‘Being of beings’ - the more fundamental ground by which particular beings are given to us - whether in experience, contemplation, or practice.

§81

He calls the difference between Being & beings the Ontological Difference. Every relation to beings, is based on a fundamental horizon of Being as such. When a specific horizon acquires historical dominance, it is metaphysical - imposing upon Being a specific relation by thought.

§82

The view of the thinking being is set on a foundation far less metaphysically loaded than the Cartesian Subject: as Dasein, a being for which there is a question or openness of Being. Dasein embodies the very discontinuity of Being that justifies the Ontological Difference.

§83

The problem with the subject-object distinction is that it can only regard beings as objects for a given subject. This makes for a notion of objectivity that is a priori idealist. The notion of Subject also implies a specific view of objects as mere utilities for its realization.

§84

Subject, moreover, defined as res cogita, is thought itself taken as its own real object. This implies an alienation of thought from reality, foreclosing its scandalous incipience in Being. This notion is the final conclusion of idealism; for Heidegger metaphysics as such.

§85

Marx already accomplished the rejection of the culmination of idealist philosophy, especially in his early writings. But the incipient materialist language he made use of (man, class, mode of production, etc.), later fell victim to inevitably metaphysical conceptualizations.

§86

Some of these Concepts were involved in the first breakdown of European Marxism itself. The changing nature of capitalist production & role of the proletariat ceased to neatly conform to their Concept, and this was used by Social Democracy to justify its revisionism.

§87

Western Marxism, with its conceptualist orthodoxy, became infiltrated by metaphysics, so it is natural that only a Western thinker entirely outside Marxism - and even entirely opposed to it politically - could initiate the emancipation of Western thought from metaphysics.

§88

Heidegger may have been beset by various idealistic and politically objectionable peculiarities, but these do not define his primary historical significance. His primary significance lies in setting all thought on a basis which asserts its posteriority in the face of Being.

§89

The concept of Dasein helps resolve the fundamental problem of Marxist theory: The Subject/Object paradox and its methodological individualism. For the first time, society, classes, and civilizations can be acknowledged as real in a manner consistent with the materialist view.

§90

Dasein does not necessarily afford contemplation exclusive significance in its overall issue of Being, so it is not just another concept of the subject: Not simply cognition, but practically being-in-the-world, facing the constitutive disjuncture with Being in its very Being.

§91

This overall phenomenological orientation permits thought to acknowledge reality without preemptively attempting to assume the consequences or implications it has for the thinking being. Whatever consequences or implications there may be, they begin with being, not thought.

§92

It is undoubtedly possible that Dasein can be conceived exclusively as an individual, but unlike the concept of the Subject, it is not necessarily so. Being as such is a common well-spring that cuts across individuated ‘subjects,’ and is the staging ground of any shared reality.

§93

Moreover, without acknowledging the incipience of thought from more fundamental Being, Marxist materialism becomes an absurdity: Materiality becomes identical to the thought of materiality (like Substance), and thus an idea! In this way, materialism easily becomes idealism.

§94

Dasein is constitutively a being already thrown in a world, a world not only not of its choosing, but whose givenness, in the form of beings, cannot be pre-emptively defined by thoughts, ideas or concepts. It rather rests upon a relation to Being as such, which can only be uncovered.

§95

The real individual is thus set against a background within which their very individuated identity is subordinated to a more fundamental horizon of Being. Dasein, in its incipience, knows no distinction between individuals, or itself and others. It is not even a collective.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:17:36

§96

Typically, Marxists try to resolve antinomy of sociality (either the sum-total of individual subjects or a collective subject individuals are part of) by just grotesquely defining it as a ‘complex’ of relationships between individuals, too numerous to ground in anything definite.

§97

The concept of Dasein, properly speaking, does not necessarily even imply individuated identity, let alone a grouping of individuals - but a more fundamental and antecedent background from which individuals acquire distinction, place and identity within a world.

§98

The simultaneous quality of being open to Being, while also itself Being, implies Dasein as an incipience of thought that goes from the question of a subject faced with its object, to a quality of the ‘object’ itself, as originally discontinuous with regard to itself.

§99

A Dasein is already immersed within a world, and is a grounded existence while simultaneously corresponding to an openness of Being at issue with, or at least discontinuous with that existence. Yet said Being is nothing more than the very Being of Dasein itself.

§100

This ontological difference (between a world of beings and Being as such) is not antagonistic, since Being merely discloses itself, implying not that it is at odds with the world, only given privileged significance in the way it reveals itself to Dasein, in contrast to beings.

§101

Particular beings acquire definition in their use, or general significance, but their real meaning is always metonymic, always referring to something more fundamental than themselves: Being as such is thus also the ultimate horizon of meaningfulness to which beings are referred.

§102

The definition of a Dasein itself, lies at the point in which it faces the threshold beyond which it cannot cross, simultaneously defining the whole of what it is. Typically understood as a person’s death, but more importantly that within which Dasein may recognize its finitude.

§103

That is necessarily beyond any particular being; even individual ego. Being as such grounds the finitude of Dasein, and meaningfulness arises not simply in the physical death of a person, but in Being itself, so far as it sets upon the limits of its disclosure to a given Dasein.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:18:41

§104

Heidegger’s shortcoming lies in the ambiguity of Dasein. While Dasein is thrown into a given community, as an established horizon of being, it acquires an authentic relationship to Being only through the exercise of individual will, where it comes to acknowledge its finitude.

§105

Yet at the same time, the community is the very ground of Dasein, since ones relation toward others constitutes a given conventionally established horizon of being. What remains ambiguous is the antisocial status of the Being which discloses itself to Dasein.

§106

Experiencing finitude is necessarily individual, yet the status of the finitude of Being itself is not clear. This is heightened by the fact that for Heidegger, every determinacy of Being is metaphysical, closing the Ontological difference by reducing Being to a particular being.

§107

Though, Heidegger does not make clear how it is community acquires singularity of being, he grounds phenomenological Being the site of its conceivability, freeing it from the methodological individualism of intersubjectivity: and that is his principal achievement for Marxism.

§108

As shown, without the aid of Heidegger, Marxism inevitably regresses into metaphysics. But paradoxically, Heidegger’s understanding of metaphysics is the very chief defect of his outlook, not only condemning it to stagnation on his part, but placing it at risk of idealism.

§109

Heidegger makes no distinction, in his understanding of metaphysics, between Being in the specificity of its determination, and Being in the specificity of its understanding within the history of philosophy. He extends the label ‘metaphysics’ beyond the realm of thought.

§110

For him, metaphysics is an actuality. Thus, industrial capitalist modernity is itself the result of metaphysics and it is implied: a consequence of the history of philosophy. Obviously from an elementary Marxist, or even commonsense perspective, he gets the whole thing backwards.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:19:15

§111

To understand how Being itself acquires a specific determination, it suffices to return to the ontological difference between Being and particular beings. Heidegger situates this difference at the core of Dasein’s existential turmoil, for which Being is always at issue.

§112

This quandary, while not identical, at least parallels that of Kant, for whom the transcendental subject is likewise situated between the antinomies. So it suffices to ‘in parallel’ look to Hegel for the solution, and transpose the difference as a difference of Being itself.

§113

That is to say, the ontological difference should change the operative notion of Being in the first place, from its one-sided conception mired in the stillness of thought, to an understanding of Being as itself contradiction, difference, etc. in sum, a dialectical union of contraries.

§114

Thus Being as such acquires determinacy as an absolute ontological union of opposites, transposing the difference at the core of Dasein to a feature of Being itself. That there exists Dasein in the first place should change something about our understanding of Being itself.

§115

Yet in contrast to Hegel, it is not necessary to draw the conclusion that thought comprises the essential element in the contradiction at the heart of Being - The misstep of phenomenological Hegelians from Kojeve to Žižek, who regressed from Heidegger’s original achievement.

§116

The important conclusion is that ontology - taken not as a philosophical contemplation, but the real threshold by which mankind relates to Being as such - is itself actively suspended and itself reproduced within material reality, as the formative ground of all thought.

§117

This threshold lies not in the limits of philosophy, but in the limits of man’s existence itself, itself suspended in temporal history. Such a limit lies not in the threshold of man’s mastery over nature, but the limit by which man lives, relates to others and to things.

§118

Such a limit is not preempted by any philosophy, idea, or consciousness, but the genuine limit of man’s existence in relation to the whole of Being, conditioned not necessarily by physical limitation, but by the limit of the absolute contradiction which forms meaning itself.

§119

This can be understood as the contradiction between the givenness of being and Being as such, or between the determinate norms of civilization and their unity in a state authority, a specific frame of past and future, particular and universal, many and one, etc.

§120

Heidegger (at least in his early years) could not see that Dasein is not just a being for whom there is a question of Being - but also a being for whom that question is already resolved in a specific way. Heidegger assumed that resolution was necessarily metaphysical.

§121

While true for the history of philosophy, it is not true for living and real mankind, for whom the contradiction between the determinacy of Being and an appreciation for the ontological, is the very content of the latter. It is what gives Being itself meaning!

§122

The absolute contradiction is a contradiction of incipience, between determination and origins. The contingency of Dasein is not simply a matter of choice, as Heidegger thought, but in a determination whose ‘reason’ is only clear retroactively, like a wavefunction collapse.

§123

A civilization is the way it is, not because it is physically impossible for it to be any other way, but precisely because it is physically possible. Only by assuming one determination against a background of many, can a higher reason participate in the development of a people.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:20:03

§124

Western Marxism, before it engages in ‘historical materialist’ analysis, projects a vulgar metaphysical view (rejected by Marx & Engels) of humanity, according to which mankind dwells at the precipice of physical extinction. Thus, everything about society is reduced to survival.

§124.1

Hence, class struggle ultimately reduces to the Rational Choice Individual, and one group merely finds itself disadvantaged with regard to others, on account of being unable to fulfill the desires, or restricting the choices of individuals. What is problematic about this is clear

§124.2

It clearly contrasts with the Marxist view of class struggle, which situates class antagonism within a single division of labor, as a contradiction at the core of being itself - giving it ontological significance, rather than a result of clashing individuals.

§125

Understanding any given civilization, is simply a matter of understanding the mode of production. The problem is they never bother to ask exactly what is being produced in the first place. They begin and end with the individual, effectively arriving at no real knowledge at all.

§126

The problem of course is that the individual is situated within a more fundamental horizon by which they relate to others, to things, etc. This jibber-jabber is well-known to ‘Marxists,’ but precisely what is meant by it, at the objective material level they never make clear.

§127

A mode of production is the mode by which something is reproduced; that something can’t just be the individual. For a mode of production to be general, it must itself have a general object, otherwise the entire concept becomes completely useless.

§128

To begin, this object - which is really the specific Being of Dasein - must be a specific logic of reproduction. You could call it a unit of civilization, or a division of labor. Marxoids have devoted an eternity of soliloquies to Capital as a logic of reproduction.

§129

Capital, whose logic is standardization, abstraction, and utilitarianism is not a specific logic, but an empty universalism, which concludes with modern American ‘civilisation,’ and now a mere extension of Church of Cartesian metaphysics (govt, financial institutions etc).

§130

M-C-M’ is merely the form of reproduction of the modern European polity; the abstraction of the commodity form corresponding to the abstraction of the state. Capital is not an autonomous process, but a civilizational quandary. A deeper object has precedence over it.

§131

In a sense, Heidegger is right that ontology here possesses primacy. Before there was capitalism, there was a more fundamental way European civilization came to relate to Being as a whole. That is not to say the latter is arbitrary - on the contrary, it is world-historical.

§132

The point is that in contrast to the vulgar materialist view, all of mankind’s ‘metaphysical,’ spiritual, cultural, scientific, etc. questions, aspirations, fears and dreams were bound up with the development of capitalism, reflecting their highest relation to Being as such.

§133

To know a logic of reproduction, is to know what is most sacred, fundamental, and ontological for a given people. No abstract, mechanical geometrical, or arithmetic conception of physical production suffices to produce knowledge of any given mode of production.

§134

It is clear that Heidegger, though providing the foundation for a Marxism freed from metaphysics, hardly allows us to go this far with the concept of Dasein. But at the very least, with the help of Hegel, it is possible to grasp ontological difference as a feature of Being itself

§135

That is the second most important step to arriving at a true conception of the objectivity of society, after Heidegger’s phenomenological turn itself. That is because it establishes Being as a specific contradiction, thus having some kind of finitude beyond individual death.

§136

This does not yet tell us anything particular about any specific Dasein. For that to be possible, it is necessary to take a fundamental step beyond Heidegger and beyond the West itself. Heidegger gave us an escape from metaphysics - but not a perspective already outside of it.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:20:29

§137

It was Aleksandr Dugin who accomplished the particularization of Heidegger’s concept of Dasein, thus allowing for it to be put to work in productive, even practical ways. And he does this by returning to the beginning of metaphysics according to Heidegger - in Logos.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:21:03

§138

Logos is the first forgetting of Being, in the form of Being as the identity of difference. Whereas Heidegger identifies Being with Time, Heraclitus identified Being as change and constant flux, and thus an identity of difference itself. The beginning of Western philosophy.

§139

Dugin, rather than languish in the melodrama of the long forgetting of Being, employs Logos as a productive concept: As the logic of a given civilization’s existence, defining its particular Dasein, or ontology. This analysis is only superficially idealist, but not necessarily.

§140

Dugin claims to reject materialism as a whole. Yet only his language is metaphysical: what he describes is nothing other than the metaphysically-concealed communal being which is the premise of any application of Scientific Socialism. The kernel of his thinking is materialist.

§141

Logos is the revealed form of Dasein, cleansing Heidegger of any traces of potential subjectivism and, in a properly Hegelian manner, transposing the ontological difference itself into a determinate object. Active geopolitical analysis can then replace impotent contemplation.

§142

Dugin offers Space as a proper counterpart to Heideggerean Time, because he does not mind being ‘metaphysical,’ in the sense of grounding Being in specificity. But from a materialist perspective, going from the general to the particular is the opposite of metaphysical.

§143

Dugin is necessary for Marxism, because without specifying the communal being which is the premise of Scientific Socialism, it not only regresses into metaphysics (and cannot draw any particular insights), it becomes a cheap extension of American unipolar liberalism.

§144

Dugin may give expression to this social being in an overtly metaphysical way, but that is just halloween dressing. The important thing is that he delimits it as the very ground of thought itself, fulfilling the logic of Marxist-Leninist dialectics, beginning from the particular.

§145

Socialism in One Country reflected the precise logic that universal Communism can only be built up within a determinate communal being, not a vain pretension to the entire world, but a concrete, grounded relationship between a specific party and a specific country.

§146

Dugin’s geopolitical orientation allows for an understanding of the objectivity of civilizations beyond the formalism of statehood - states only exist to the extent that they can reflect the underlying logos of a civilization, reflected in its geography.

§146.1

For Dugin, the logos acquires particularity (beyond the mere identity of difference) where it establishes a particular logic relating one to many, identity and difference, being and becoming, stasis and flux, universal and particular, central authority and local community, etc

§146.2

Logos is stamped by a particular logic of how it relates to its own incipience, how it excludes nothingness, how a people relate to their own constitutive origins, by what means they relate to a universality, what specific limit defines their existence.

§147

The logos of civilization easily translates in Marxist terms into a specific logic of communal reproduction, which itself would mean nothing without acknowledging the primacy of ‘ontology’ - at least taken to mean the way in which mankind reproduces the conditions of Form.

§148

With Dugin, knowledge can only be derived from the ground-up: every metaphysical, noetic, even psychological assumption is suspended and imperiled phenomenally - not a single conceit of the mind can be idle in the investigation of civilizations and geopolitics.

§149

What accounts for a great deal of Dugin’s mysticism is the phenomenalization of the active intellect, which must cross beyond itself and into its real material premises, where only a language of the sublime can suffice to give expression to its objective limitations.

§150

Importantly, these limitations are put to work for Dugin - the limits of metaphysics are immanent limits of logos itself, thus enabling a positive a positive analysis and investigation of different civilizations, rather than just understanding them in terms of their differences.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:21:46

§151

This brings us to what is by far the most important contribution of Dugin, and which permits him to be characterized as a true metaphysical materialist, going beyond even Heidegger - and that is in Dugin’s concept of Chaos, the true the phenomenal form of material being.

§152

Whereas Heidegger understands in Heraclitus the beginning of Being’s oblivion, Dugin identifies at the precise incipience of Logos a dark counterpart to it - that is chaos. Chaos is not randomness, nor meaninglessness. It is really the antecedent density of material being.

§153

In contrast to the exclusive principle of Logos, based on differentiation, identity - which defines itself in contrast to the void of nothingness - chaos is an inclusive principle. It is a dark shadow of logos, corresponding to Being that it has forgotten, but which follows it.

§154

Whereas Chaos is ‘Nothing’ to the Logos (or the intellect), it is in reality something. What is this if not a precise materialist view, which asserts the primacy and antecedence of a reality which cannot ever be reduced to any product of the mind?

§155

As an inclusive principle, Logos is included within Chaos, as one of its possibilities. This reflects the history of the ‘Asiatic’ Empires, which never seem to annihilate any aspect of their being (including the conquered), but only include, and aggregate in a higher form.

§156

Chaos is a type of index of Dasein’s development, which cannot be conditioned by the forms of Being it gives rise to. It is the inert density, and eternity of material being faced by the intellect, which extends infinitely into the past, assailing its development into one Whole.

§157

This bears an obvious similarity to Solovyov’s Sophiology, which identifies the feminine divine wisdom as a fourth hypostasis of the trinity. Sophia is the Whole body of universal humanity - the infinite past of infinite divine wisdom of the accumulated history of all mankind.

§158

It is in this way that Dugin renders any Heideggerean accusation of metaphysics superfluous - for Being as such is always remembered in the positive concept of Chaos, which always subsumes Logos - a kind of parallel to the Russian relationship to European modernity.

§159

Chaos affirms that every Logos, every revealed form of Dasein or communal being, is haunted by a more fundamental material ground of existence, which has given rise to it as one of its many possibilities. This tension between Logos and Chaos is the real absolute contradiction.

§160

Translated in materialist terms, civilizations acquire objectivity not because of some static metaphysical quality (like genes), but because their determination reflects an active dialectic at the heart of material being itself. Objectivity is that which realizes a contradiction.

§161

The dialectic in question concerns the incipience of what Ilyenkov called the ‘thinking consciousness’ - which is really more like Dasein - from its opposite in material being. This contradiction is itself real (and the only real thing), and not just an illusion of our finitude.

§162

For Dugin, the concept of Chaos is reflects the inert reality of that contradiction, accumulated in all its forms, unaltered but inclusive of all possibilities. This makes for a materialism surprisingly similar to the Spinozist kind, rendering Logos a kind of attribute of Chaos…

§163

The proper counterpart of the concept of Chaos is the Lacanian ‘non-all.’ Because it precedes differentiation itself, it is ‘all,’ only, not ‘all’ as the sum-total of beings. It is ‘everything,’ but reflects the incompleteness of ‘everything’ by not to be any one form of it.

§164

The problem of the concept of Chaos and by extension Dugin’s notion of Logos is that it is still too metaphysical. It is one-sided materialism, where chaos is never truly, absolutely, and fully, imperiled in its determinations. This gives rise to a type of ‘pluralism’ in Dugin.

§165

The pluralism of different Dasein, and different Logos, is Dugin’s greatest achievement, but also his greatest weakness: Because it is undercut by an unconditionally singular concept of Chaos, which is the condition of this pluralism. Somewhat similar to Spinoza’s Substance.

§166

Dugin escapes too easily the fact of a world-historical and global ‘ontological division of labor’ by humanity. It is hardly conceivable to understand Russian logos, without also including its relation and response to the European kind. The common fate of humanity is inescapable.

§167

While Dugin is right to reject globalism, with its imposition of one ontic vision of humanity, without a shared humanity, the internal reality and development of different civilizations lose their own ground of meaning. Certainty of ones fate is certain impossibility.

§168

By this it is meant that, while a given civilization can certainly come to appreciate and acknowledge its ‘logos,’ it cannot confuse this as the final horizon of Being itself - at minimum, it must rather regard any new disclosure of Being as capable of including it.

§169

Because of this, a civilization cannot recognize its own humanity without recognizing the humanity of others - since, at the level of incipient Dasein - ones own particular Being is actively suspended in the future oriented phenomenal disclosure, known only retroactively.

§169.1

What this means is that at least on a minimal level, all civilizations of mankind share a single ontological plane, and even historical rationality (Hegel), on account of this necessary mutual recognition on the basis of openness of fate.

§170

While Dasein can be particularized, its constitutive lack of certain knowledge about what will enter its own phenomenal horizon is universal, and the same good faith a Dasein must constitutively afford for itself that it is human, it must afford for other civilizations.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:22:23

§171

This is all that humanism in Marxism amounts to: not a specific ontic view of the human elevated above reality, but a recognition of the human as that to which every knowledge returns: Only the return of an outlook, thought, etc. to its real premises, reconciles it as a being.

§172

Within Marxism-Leninism (and originally consistent with Marx), lies a sophianic view of knowledge, which is neither scholastic nor based in technological domination. Persons like Stalin and Mao had the sage-like quality of knowledge in the form of wisdom.

§173

This type of knowledge does not elevate itself above its object, but is like the Hegelian absolute knowledge, corresponding to it absolutely. In this view, knowledge of civilization does not give rise to the occasion of ‘changing’ it by premising it on the basis of consciousness.

§174

To know a thing does not always mean to possess mastery of it - to know a thing also corresponds to insight into the limit by which that thing is a necessary and rational existence. This is true for nature in the era of ecology, but it is even more true for civilizations.

§175

Communist consciousness does NOT entail the voluntary transformation of society. It entails knowledge in the form of wisdom, of the laws guiding the development of society, and this consciousness intervenes in reality only at the site of the latter’s objective contradictions.

§176

The organic development of communal being, and society, is not premised by voluntary consciousness - but by the generational wisdom that allows people to make sense of their place in the world, and their relations toward others. No ‘conscious’ conceit could possibly replace that.

§177

Societies and civilizations change - but they do not change according to the whims of consciousness. They change according to what organically makes sense to people, in ways that are compatible with their living being, and their specific logic of reproduction.

§178

The application of ‘human rights’ to the sphere of culture, is the highpoint of madness of bourgeois civilization, which is beginning to consume its own human premises. No interiority of grounded life, with its own internal logical and rational development is any longer possible.

§179

Wokeness has nothing to do with the Marxist outlook. You can BULLSHIT all you want by referencing academic bullshit. In China, there is no wokeness. In the Soviet Union, there was no wokeness. Their cultural reforms they did have had NOTHING in common with it.

§180

A logic of reproduction develops on its own terms, and only in ways that are compatible with the reproduction of units of civilization itself. Hierarchy of respect, family life, and culture all reflect objective wisdoms about what human life is, passed through generations.

§181

They are wisdoms because of what they encompass in scale: You can make up your own retarded LGBT identity from scratch. But it is not tested before the wealth of possibilities, outcomes, and experiences of a human life compatible with a civilization shared by others.

§182

The significance of Communism intervenes not in the need to create a new community, but on the contrary, to give expression to the precise indeterminateness and contradictions propelling the development of a given community. That is why it doesn’t refer to anything specific.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:23:02

§183

Nothing is more anti-communist than Communism itself. Impotent intellectual wimps like James Lindsay and other rightist idiots cannot even dream of coming close: Communism alone emancipates humanity from its objective ‘communist oppression.’

§184

Bourgeois modernity itself, and even Capital can be thought of as a ‘forms’ of communism, giving limitation to objective communal beings in a specific, universal, indiscriminate ‘form,’ the common reality of abstract, formalist, universal modernity.

§184.1

At stake in the consciousness of class struggle, is the sublation of this formal modernity, giving recognition to a contradiction at the heart of it. Communist universalism, unites the future-oriented universalism of modernity with the Sofianic infinite past.

§184.2

Class struggle, given proper ontological recognition, reflects the subsumption of modernist universalism (for Heidegger, Cartesian metaphysics) to a particular grounding of being, a particular traditional civilization and concrete development.

§184.3

Thus Communism does not try to escape modernity or the Cartesian subject, but fully go through it: giving it proper ontological status as an immanent contradiction, in sum, a dialectical object. The ‘value-form’ is finally given recognition, as torn from within.

§184.4

The value-form is immersed within the context of a definite logic of reproduction, which in fact gives it concrete particularity, and whose existence is the beginning of a type of production based on use - in other words, the so-called early stage of socialism.

§185

Communism is the inescapable reality of mankind - but only Communism as such, which “disdains to conceal its aims” objectively frees humanity from a given form of communal being, insofar as it contradicts the real content of communal being.

§186

Dasein is nothing other than Communism itself. Communism is the true horizon within which the objective communal being of a given people reveals itself, in a manner that is consistent with their world and society. Communism is the real movement of change.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:23:35

§187

Communists do not need to ‘abolish’ anything whatsoever - insofar as anything deserves to be abolish, it has already abolished itself in reality: Only in Communism, are the contradictions, changes, and aspirations of a people suspended into a single phenomenal horizon.

§188

Communism only gives expression to the ‘real communism’ already inherent in a given civilization or people, it simply NAMES this. Communism just names the excess of development, indeterminacy, and contradiction possessed by every civilization.

§189

Communism always ‘falls into place,’ in a manner that reconciles, sublates, and is compatible with existing civilizations. Communism simply names the openness of destiny itself, which in the last instance can only be known by God - but definitely not by any man.

§190

In Communism, the whole of civilization, culture, and society, is ‘lifted up’ and imperiled in the struggle of the proletariat. Only retroactively can it be known what survives past the threshold of its inevitable victory. The whole history of mankind is imperiled in it.

§191

Communism definitely is the risk that everything meaningful and human will be dissolved. Everything is ‘suspended’ into the future, which is ultimately undecidable. Faith in faith in God, faith in the people - is faith that things will fall back into place in a way that is human.

§192

The whole of the people, the whole of the country, and the whole of history is imperiled in the fight for the future. Everything is bounded up there. Everything is actively suspended in something which will not be decided without struggle. Absolutely everything is at stake.

§193

Why it is called ‘Communism’ and not something more specific, is precisely because its specificity, while an inevitability, is never fully formed. That is on account of the historical development of mankind as a continual process.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:24:14

§194

The era of the rediscovery of Marxism in the West, and America in particular, is upon us. America as the culmination of bourgeois modernity, now faces the certain prospect of civil war. And the self-consuming madness of capitalist modernity imperils all humanity.

§195

A new Event, a new era of the disclosure of Being is upon us - a new threshold by which mankind relates to Being, and thus, an era of Communist revival. 400 years of Cartesian metaphysics now comes to close, and we are thrown into an era of definite uncertainty.

§196

Marxism as a whole must be rediscovered, and emancipated from its social-democratic metaphysical decay, in a manner consistent with the ongoing experience of Marxism-Leninism. The common destiny of mankind depends on it.

§197

One may try to object to an interpretation of Marxism that draws from Heidegger and Dugin. But there is no other way to make sense of the wisdoms of Marxism-Leninism, at least from the Western perspective. And not just in terms of theory, but also in terms of practice.

§198

Real existing Communist states regarded (and continue to regard) society and civilization as objective realities, while also recognizing the role of the Communist party as the guiding light of society’s development. Development does not eliminate the laws of history.

§198.1

They did not regard Communist consciousness as some supreme reality which liquidates and replaces all the wisdoms of mankind with some empty abstraction. Communist consciousness was precisely the sage-like insight, appreciation and respect for that wisdom.

§198.2

Communism does not replace society. It only gives expression to that development which within society is truly and concretely general, truly universal, truly in common. That is the ontological supremacy represented by the proletariat: the true common destiny of mankind.

§198.3

The universalism of the proletariat takes for granted the universalism of abstract modernity (from which Communism has its origins). Yet it avoids the self-consuming madness of globalism, by giving concrete reconciliation of this abstraction in being itself.

§199

Communist development does not eliminate the laws of civilization, the mores, sensibilities and culture of a people. At best, it may reveal changes that were already latent within them, according to the tasks of a new era.

§200

The only real measure of progress, is what takes root organically, and in a manner consistent, or at least compatible with the whole of a people, civilization and history. Various individual-subjectivist trends and ‘experiments’ have nothing to do with Communism.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:24:40

§201

Communist progress is measured in terms of renunciation and resignation, where a revolution finally reaches its limit. This limit alone defines it as progressive, lasting, objective, and part of the immortal history of mankind - for it defines the finitude of civilization itself.

§202

Upon realizing the limits of Hegelian absolute knowledge, Marx came upon the proletariat as the solution, the reconciliation, and the wisdom grounding the lofty heights attained by the mind.

§203

Upon realizing the limits of European social democracy, Lenin came upon the Bolshevik party, and the strategy of the joint dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.

§204

Upon realizing the limits of the geographic spread of revolution, Stalin came upon the theory of Socialism in One Country, and for the first time, Communism acquired a concrete, positive mode of development, and civilization, practically aware of its ground in being.

§204.1

Nothing better epitomizes this aesthetic (ontological sensibility) of renunciation than socialist realism, which drew from impressionism the somber, yet cathartic art of 'settling reality back into place'.

§204.2

All that suffices to grasp the ontological vision of Marxism-Leninism, is to appreciate the transition from the Soviet avant-garde to socialist realism.

§205

Upon realizing the limits of the cultural revolution, Deng Xiaoping initiated the reform and opening up, and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, which has given Communism an unprecedented vitality, dynamism, and flexibility in the guidance of economic development.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:25:23

§206

It is now time to finally realize the limit of modernity itself, and American modernity in particular. This requires a comprehensive reexamination of the significance of Communism and its relationship to traditional civilizations within the West.

§207

But most importantly, it requires the unconditional assumption of responsibility, by American Communists, before the unforeseen challenges facing the American people.

Communism now entails the responsibility of mankind before its common destiny.
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:25:57

§208

Only out of this, may a people regain meaning after the catastrophe that is to come.

https://twitter.com/InfraHaz/status/1672292530900340737
作者: 远航一号    时间: 2023-6-24 10:27:01

Why Marxism is not Woke:

Proving beyond possible doubt that James Lindsay and other rightists are fundamentally wrong about Marxism, and that Marxist theory in the West is meaningless without the aid of Dugin and Heidegger’s thinking.

[MASSIVE THREAD]

https://twitter.com/InfraHaz/status/1672279455732215809
作者: 激活    时间: 2023-6-24 18:59:56

西红柿收割机 发表于 2023-6-19 23:50
如果没有霸权，那资本主义世界体系就不存在了，就比如说，美国长期依靠它的贸易逆差来购买外围国家的出口 ...

这个是不是有例外，像是我们对朝鲜是顺差？
作者: 俞聂    时间: 2024-1-3 14:42:20

远航一号 发表于 2023-6-24 10:02
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 ...

这个长系列的推文挺有意思



欢迎光临 红色中国网 (http://redchinacn.net/) Powered by Discuz! X2