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.
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:
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… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
§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… https://t.co/5ZFAjkjDqBtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
§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.
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… https://t.co/KksFiqUF2Jtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
§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.
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.… https://t.co/xllJZpRGNptwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
§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.
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… https://t.co/919VPDQoPAtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
§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… https://t.co/RjoG0rN0BMtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
§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.
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.… https://t.co/mmWDzkDfVdtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
§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.… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
§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… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
§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… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
§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.… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
§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… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
§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.
§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.… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
§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.… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
§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… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
§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.’
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.… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
§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.
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… https://t.co/das6hsH9oLtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
§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.
The average Dutch worker, in their common sense, views the farmer's uprising as their own.
The average Western 'Marxist,' in their theoretical confusion at best, views it as 'petite-bourgeois.' How did it come to this?
🧵
As all other things, Western 'Marxists' have reified the crude formulations of early social democracy, which were meant to popularize Marxism to the average person in the late 19th. C.
At the time, Europe had been undergoing a century long process of modern urbanization.
In this process, where all of the determinate social bonds of rural life were being broken down, the city, alongside its political form in the Universal Citizen, had an effect of leveling down all distinctions.