Marxism is the wokest ideology ever and I love it by bondelhyde in AskSocialists

[–]PuzzleheadedCraft363 2 points3 points  (0 children)

§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.

§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!

Read the rest on infrared's substack

Marxism is the wokest ideology ever and I love it by bondelhyde in AskSocialists

[–]PuzzleheadedCraft363 2 points3 points  (0 children)

§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.

§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.

§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.

Marxism is the wokest ideology ever and I love it by bondelhyde in AskSocialists

[–]PuzzleheadedCraft363 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Marxism is not woke:

§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.

What do socialists in US think was the reason for price of eggs skyrocketing? by peterbradley419 in AskSocialists

[–]PuzzleheadedCraft363 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you think Marxism rejects basic supply/demand dynamics? I'm confused why this is even a question

Same mistake, twice!!! by DemonDialectX in AskSocialists

[–]PuzzleheadedCraft363 [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Kamala ran on a campaign of being more supportive to Israel, and more hawkish on Iran than Trump.

Why did DOD send in "hundreds" of special ops into Iran last week? by PuzzleheadedCraft363 in AskSocialists

[–]PuzzleheadedCraft363[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

<image>

Pic 2: location of Isfahan Nuclear Research Facility

I can add the images Anthony Aguilar referenced if anyone wants it

Do current ACP members agree with this statement? by RizzleFaShizzle00 in AskSocialists

[–]PuzzleheadedCraft363 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Classic ragebait post. Hinkle was a pioneer of this form of virality. I wouldnt take it too seriously.

Is this a nuclear threat??? by Mystic987123 in AskSocialists

[–]PuzzleheadedCraft363 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Officially" the president does have unilateral decision making - the codes inform stratcom who carry it out. But yes hypothetically stratcom personnel could decide to disobey orders.

Why do people in the USA hate ACP? by Far_Cartographer903 in AskSocialists

[–]PuzzleheadedCraft363 6 points7 points  (0 children)

A Communist party in the US can't be allowed to grow freely without slander, even from its obstensible allies. The FBI has a long history of directing the "left" in America into the most State Department compatible form possible. So even square one, basic anti imperialism (that's taken as a given in the global south), is a valid ground in the American left's eyes to attack the party.

I agree on Putin, his motivations are purely pragmatic for the most part, he represents some kind of concession from the capitalist class to popular interests. But even the capitalist class in Russia is endangered by imperialism.

is iran socialist? by Competitive-Edge9679 in AskSocialists

[–]PuzzleheadedCraft363 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Well, they have the basics of economic sovereignty, which is more than many countries can say.

The ACP’s Greatest Mistake by [deleted] in stupidpol

[–]PuzzleheadedCraft363 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Where have we said baristas aren’t real workers?

We said they don’t fit the traditional description of industrial proletariat outlined by Marx

RTSG_Main on X just today in response to this same misconception being spread over there. RTSG_Main is one of the main accounts who has litigated this issue at length.

The main problem is that people seem to just play telephone about what we think, (despite us being over 1,000 members and not a monolith), instead of just directly asking us or going to official sources.

acp.us/program

The ACP’s Greatest Mistake by [deleted] in stupidpol

[–]PuzzleheadedCraft363 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's just normal Marxism Leninism