"The second stage [of capitalism] is that in which the bourgeois spirit finally manifests itself in the pure state; in which it realizes fully what it had already achieved about nature, abolishing mystery and quality and replacing them with measurable, quantitative data.
The spontaneous ideology of the bourgeoisie is pure materialism, positivism focused exclusively on raw facts, the denial of that any meaning exists that transcends the immediate phenomenon. At the neo-capitalist stage the bourgeoisie is so dominant that it no longer needs
to modify to some extent its own spontaneous ideology, in order to let other social classes integrate into it, albeit in subordinate form; it no longer needs, in short, to compromise with Christianity ... In Gramsci's version the revolutionary party provides the bourgeois spirit
with the opportunity to realize itself in the pure state. The Gramscian transition is thus completely absorbed into the shift from the old to the new form of capitalism. Thereby it merges with the current form of 'conservatism' marked by the attempt to eliminate the possibility
of calling into question the instrumentalist mindset. Such conservatism coincides with the appearance of great change because the unceasing evolution of the technical-scientific instrument leads to an equally unceasing transformation of ways of feeling and thinking" (DN 1975).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Among other things, the events at the Capitol were a desecration of the main temple of American civic religion by a competing faith, and I think that contributed to it emotional impact.
(especially with the shaman etc.)
One cannot look up at the fresco in the dome of the Capitol and fail to recognize its religious significance. A perfect replica of a baroque Church dome with the coronation of Mary replaced by the apotheosis of George Washington.
The question with Trump is always whether he is the real agent of the desecration or just the apocalypse (revelation) of the inevitable outcome of choices that predate him.
Been thinking about the radical opposition between the PC-progressive concept of *representation* and the classical concept of *recognition*.
(which has the same etymological structure as *respect*: mutual knowledge, mutual seeing).
Every human being wants to be recognized *as human* by other humans. This is the root of true "inclusion": the recognition of a common humanity beyond our differences, where the word "humanity" has a metaphysical-religious significance (being relationship with the infinite).
By contrast, the concept of representation is psycho-sociological: I am defined not by my humanity, but by belonging to a certain group, more or less arbitrarily defined by singling out certain psycho-somatic or characteristics. As a result, I have a right to be "included"
Even some of the most intelligent critics of liberalism sometimes do not make a clear enough distinction between the terms in which the question arose in the the 19th century, and the terms in which it arises today.
In the 19th century, "liberalism" operated in the context of secularized Christianity (e.g. Kantian ethics) and attempted to separate morality from metaphysics and religion. As such it led to relativism, subjectivism and various other ills.
But after 1917 we have entered the stage of the expansion of political atheism which rejects classical (Aristotelian and Christian) ethics in favor of the "ethics of the direction of history" (Del Noce), which in turn leads inevitably to various forms of totalitarianism.
Historically Fascism was born as a revolutionary movement that rejected Marxist historical materialism (the link between the revolution and the necessary logic of history) while keeping the dialectical aspect (man as creator, politics as true religion, the primacy of praxis).
So, the Fascist type (Mussolini) was an "activist without a plan," who valued action and personal power as ends in themselves but had no vision of the future. This is why he ended up an ally/instrument of conservative forces that gave Fascism the appearance of being reactionary.
In that sense, some of today's "revolutionaries" seem more Fascist than Marxist. The "other half" of Marxism (sociologism, secularism, technocracy) is the ideology of the professional classes (so called "liberals" who are economically quite "conservative.")
1) What is acting today is actually "half-Marxism" because it has mostly shed Marx's philosophy of history, thus becoming "irrational." The "revolution" does not fulfill the plan of history but just a will to power, and is entirely "intra-bourgeois" like 1968 in Europe.
2) Conversely, liberalism has shed its 19th century Kantian or Protestant aspects, and has embraced the "other half" of Marxism: materialism, sociologism, relativism etc What DN calls "objectivized" Marxism without the revolutionary impulse.
My Sunday thoughts: the question of the moment is whether the protests will push for *reform* or pursue the mirage of *revolution*. I think the jury is still out, but the academic-journalistic complex is clearly pushing in the second direction, which matches their world view.
"Reform" recognizes that we must strive as hard as we can to realize permanent values (e.g. justice) which transcend us, and which we can achieve only imperfectly because evil (e.g. racism) lurks within everyone (original sin) and cannot be ultimately eliminated, only contained.
By contrast the "revolution" thinks that evil can be eliminated, because it resides NOT IN US but in "the system" and the system can be changed by the exercise of power. Thus it expresses a dualistic, non-biblical (gnostic) type of religiosity (modern prototype: Marxism).