在哔站看到了半外围论和中帝论的辩论

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!

远航一号

§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.

远航一号

§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.

远航一号

§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.

远航一号

§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.

远航一号

§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?