在哔站看到了半外围论和中帝论的辩论

远航一号

§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.

远航一号

§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.

远航一号

§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.

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?

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

§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

§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

§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

§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

§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!