How Marxists made truth into hate speech technique explained; Here is the transcript:
Marksizm Semantyczny
Teoria Dyskursu
Semantic Marxism-Discourse Theory
Marksizm Semantyczny
Teoria Dyskursu
Semantic Marxism-Discourse Theory
The notion of "discourse" has become very trendy lately, and it's being used in a very nonchalant way by representatives of totally different ideologies. But all seems to point to its being used in order to designate "discussion". Only it does sound better; it is "trendy" and testifies to the higher intellectual ambitions of the users.
However, this notion - even though it has a much older history, has currently become an element of a phraseology of the New Marxism. And if it's being used mindlessly even by its opponents; it means that they adopted Marxist language. which is, in itself, a testimony of the cultural domination of Marxism. Therefore, I'll explain briefly.
The formula of discussion was worked out back in the Middle Ages by the teachings of the Scholastics, whose goal was searching for the Truth. And the reference point for evaluating competing views was knowledge about reality, which was treated as an account of the facts, independent of subjective interpretation or judgement.
One of the conditions of the discussion is precisely separating this; what is the description of reality, thus the knowledge about the facts, from subjective interpretations, evaluations, or represented interests. That objective sphere is the base for the verification of the legitimacy of positions and constitutes, one might say, an independent argument.
In the new linguistic paradigm, such an objective knowledge about reality traditionally called the Truth, doesn't exist. Therefore a discussion about social life has to be organized following other norms, and has to have a different goal.
There are several Discourse Theories, but the most important one for the New Marxism was created by the representative of the second generation of the Frankfurt School and reformer of Critical Theory, Jurgen Habermas. The very same person who criticized the Fascist attitude of Rudi Dutschke at Hanover Congress in 1957.
The main work by Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, published in 1981, is a summary of the new concept of the Consensus Truth introduced in a book published in 1973 called "The Theories of the Truth".
According to Habermas, the veracity of falsehood of a statement, while there are no objective verification criteria, are decided by their declarative force.
So the very fact that we state something, demanding ipso facto that the statement be recognized as true, is an argument determining definitely the veracity of the statement..
The substantiation of the veracity of such a claim cannot be the obviousness of the experience, but the process of the discourse, or the process during which the truth is being established,
When translated into normal language, it means that the truth is that what, during the discourse, is being presented as the truth and accepted as truth by all its participants, because the condition for truth is the consensus,
As it's easy to guess that the reference point for the argumentation supporting different positions cannot be reality. It's the power of persuasion that becomes the reference point.
It is not, however, hanging in the void. Discourse Theory, whose goal is consensus, creates its own space in which a vital role is being played by the notions of Communicative Rationality and the Communicative Ethic.
Communicative Rationality is a principle of thinking whose point is consensus. It isn't by definition contrary with the rationality in the common understanding of the word, or logical thinking of cause and effect; but that logical rationality isn't the principle that is mandatory and superior, because it has no support in objectively stable reality,
The reality which is the reference point is the so-called inter-subjectivity, which is neither objectivity, because objectivity doesn't exist, nor subjectivity, because subjectivity excludes consensus.
The discourse is the reference point for itself and establishes its own discourse ethic. The principals of the Discourse Ethnic were established by Habermas together with a longtime collaborator Karl-Otto Apel.
"Consensus isn't a compromise, or acceptance of an agreed-upon position which partially takes into account different views of the parties, Consensus is an affirmation of the agreed-upon position, and therefore demands the change of one's position."
Consensus isn't a compromise or an elaboration of a position that can possibly be accepted by all as a result of concession by each party from a clearly defined own position, view and interest.
Consensus in the understanding of Discourse Theory doesn't mean the agreement of all the parties with the elaborated position, but the Abandonment of the previous position, and the acceptance of the common position as One's own.
"The prerequisite for participation in the Discourse is the renunciation of the conviction of the legitimacy of one's position (not of having it, but of what it says), because it precludes the willingness to reach a consensus"
"Anyone, who represents a precise position that he would like to defend is opposing the idea of agreement and consensus, and becomes the sower of discord, conflict and hate."
Consensus doesn't so much mean acceptance as Affirmation of the elaborated negotiating position, (i.e. not ACCEPTING but LOVING Big Brother) The prerequisite of the very adherence to the discourse is the renunciation of conviction about the objective legitimacy of one's own position, It's logical because if one is convinced of that legitimacy, then one's goal of participating in the discourse will be rather to justify the validity of one's own position, rather than to strive for acceptance, or even affirmation of the common position, which isn't the same as one's own position. Such an approach is therefore contrary to the idea of consensus. Even though it might seem like splitting hairs, it's worth underlining here the importance of this aspect, Because the ethic of the discourse goes beyond the frame of the discourse itself in such a sense, that in its categories, every precisely specified position, every point of view, that someone would like to defend or that he even only considers as objectively legitimate, puts him immediately in the position of the Enemy Of Consensus or the sower of discord, conflict and Hate.
I'll stubbornly reiterate: if anyone uses the notion of "discourse" instead of "discussion" or agrees to participate in a discourse and not in a discussion, then he should realize that he is waving the right to have precise convictions, or to buttress himself with the knowledge of reality as an argument justifying those convictions.
What is presented here, very briefly, the Neo-Marxist conception of the Common Consensus, is hard to translate into praxis because it's indefinite what decides WHICH truth as the result of the Discursive Consensus.
The answer, however, is simple: what is decisive about it is which party succeeded in prompting the other party to consider the position of the first party as their own.
However, this notion - even though it has a much older history, has currently become an element of a phraseology of the New Marxism. And if it's being used mindlessly even by its opponents; it means that they adopted Marxist language. which is, in itself, a testimony of the cultural domination of Marxism. Therefore, I'll explain briefly.
The formula of discussion was worked out back in the Middle Ages by the teachings of the Scholastics, whose goal was searching for the Truth. And the reference point for evaluating competing views was knowledge about reality, which was treated as an account of the facts, independent of subjective interpretation or judgement.
One of the conditions of the discussion is precisely separating this; what is the description of reality, thus the knowledge about the facts, from subjective interpretations, evaluations, or represented interests. That objective sphere is the base for the verification of the legitimacy of positions and constitutes, one might say, an independent argument.
In the new linguistic paradigm, such an objective knowledge about reality traditionally called the Truth, doesn't exist. Therefore a discussion about social life has to be organized following other norms, and has to have a different goal.
There are several Discourse Theories, but the most important one for the New Marxism was created by the representative of the second generation of the Frankfurt School and reformer of Critical Theory, Jurgen Habermas. The very same person who criticized the Fascist attitude of Rudi Dutschke at Hanover Congress in 1957.
The main work by Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, published in 1981, is a summary of the new concept of the Consensus Truth introduced in a book published in 1973 called "The Theories of the Truth".
According to Habermas, the veracity of falsehood of a statement, while there are no objective verification criteria, are decided by their declarative force.
So the very fact that we state something, demanding ipso facto that the statement be recognized as true, is an argument determining definitely the veracity of the statement..
The substantiation of the veracity of such a claim cannot be the obviousness of the experience, but the process of the discourse, or the process during which the truth is being established,
When translated into normal language, it means that the truth is that what, during the discourse, is being presented as the truth and accepted as truth by all its participants, because the condition for truth is the consensus,
As it's easy to guess that the reference point for the argumentation supporting different positions cannot be reality. It's the power of persuasion that becomes the reference point.
It is not, however, hanging in the void. Discourse Theory, whose goal is consensus, creates its own space in which a vital role is being played by the notions of Communicative Rationality and the Communicative Ethic.
Communicative Rationality is a principle of thinking whose point is consensus. It isn't by definition contrary with the rationality in the common understanding of the word, or logical thinking of cause and effect; but that logical rationality isn't the principle that is mandatory and superior, because it has no support in objectively stable reality,
The reality which is the reference point is the so-called inter-subjectivity, which is neither objectivity, because objectivity doesn't exist, nor subjectivity, because subjectivity excludes consensus.
The discourse is the reference point for itself and establishes its own discourse ethic. The principals of the Discourse Ethnic were established by Habermas together with a longtime collaborator Karl-Otto Apel.
"Consensus isn't a compromise, or acceptance of an agreed-upon position which partially takes into account different views of the parties, Consensus is an affirmation of the agreed-upon position, and therefore demands the change of one's position."
Consensus isn't a compromise or an elaboration of a position that can possibly be accepted by all as a result of concession by each party from a clearly defined own position, view and interest.
Consensus in the understanding of Discourse Theory doesn't mean the agreement of all the parties with the elaborated position, but the Abandonment of the previous position, and the acceptance of the common position as One's own.
"The prerequisite for participation in the Discourse is the renunciation of the conviction of the legitimacy of one's position (not of having it, but of what it says), because it precludes the willingness to reach a consensus"
"Anyone, who represents a precise position that he would like to defend is opposing the idea of agreement and consensus, and becomes the sower of discord, conflict and hate."
Consensus doesn't so much mean acceptance as Affirmation of the elaborated negotiating position, (i.e. not ACCEPTING but LOVING Big Brother) The prerequisite of the very adherence to the discourse is the renunciation of conviction about the objective legitimacy of one's own position, It's logical because if one is convinced of that legitimacy, then one's goal of participating in the discourse will be rather to justify the validity of one's own position, rather than to strive for acceptance, or even affirmation of the common position, which isn't the same as one's own position. Such an approach is therefore contrary to the idea of consensus. Even though it might seem like splitting hairs, it's worth underlining here the importance of this aspect, Because the ethic of the discourse goes beyond the frame of the discourse itself in such a sense, that in its categories, every precisely specified position, every point of view, that someone would like to defend or that he even only considers as objectively legitimate, puts him immediately in the position of the Enemy Of Consensus or the sower of discord, conflict and Hate.
I'll stubbornly reiterate: if anyone uses the notion of "discourse" instead of "discussion" or agrees to participate in a discourse and not in a discussion, then he should realize that he is waving the right to have precise convictions, or to buttress himself with the knowledge of reality as an argument justifying those convictions.
What is presented here, very briefly, the Neo-Marxist conception of the Common Consensus, is hard to translate into praxis because it's indefinite what decides WHICH truth as the result of the Discursive Consensus.
The answer, however, is simple: what is decisive about it is which party succeeded in prompting the other party to consider the position of the first party as their own.
