The Truth is Determined Through Marxist Discourse

The following video is an appropriate follow-up to Maj. Stephen Coughlin’s discussions of the Hegelian dialectic at the OSCE and the determination that the truth can be hate speech.

Ava Lon, who translated the video from the Polish, includes this introduction:

The following video shows seven minutes of a longer video, from Krzysztof Karon — the very Polish writer who informed us about Altiero Spinelli and his role in the creation of the EU. The entire video is about the semantic changes put forth by the — as he calls them — Neo-Marxists, in order to appropriate the language, the debate and finally be able to create the narrative.

They reach this goal by beginning with a premise (a false premise) that Truth cannot be known at all; it is only described by our imperfect language, which can vary from one person to another, and therefore causes the Truth to be unknowable, or creates many Truths. [if you’re confused already, please keep in mind that 2+2=4, no matter how you say it, in what language, and how poor your grammar might be]

If the Truth depends on language, nothing seems simpler than to modify it by modifying the language, on purpose. Who decides how the Truth will be modified, or rather: what will be called the Truth once the necessary changes have been performed?

Jürgen Habermas, who belongs to the second generation of Frankfurt School philosophers, after suggesting the nonexistence of objective Truth and the possibility therefore of molding it at will, answers this question by proposing a collective solution in the endeavor of deciding what the Truth is, or rather what it should be.

The process by which the Truth is established is called the Discourse, according to Communicative Action Theory — known in Poland as Discourse Theory, and this is the name used in the argument by Krzysztof Karon in this video, ‘discourse’ being the key word — and Discourse, unlike a normal discussion, brooks no dissent. The consensus reached in that process isn’t reached by presenting better arguments, but rather by pressuring everyone to abandon their own views and adhere to the consensus. The difference between this and a compromise is that in a compromise everybody gives up something in order to agree on a common ground. In the Neo-Marxist Consensus Discourse, certain positions are given up completely, and the person whole-heartedly accepts the Truth established by the discourse and its consensus as HIS OWN (just as in Orwell’s 1984, it wasn’t enough to simply ACCEPT Big Brother; one had to truly LOVE him).

Once everybody has agreed on what the Truth is (in every particular case), doubting, criticizing, speaking about different possibilities, or even just asking questions about that Neo-Marxist “revealed Truth” is sowing discord, enmity and hate speech.

I thought this was very important in the light of the sentencing of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria, where clearly the truth was not a defense, and anyway, the court already had some sort of consensus about what the truth was.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for subtitling this video:

Video transcript:

20:06   SEMANTIC MARXISM — Discourse Theory
20:12   The notion of “discourse” has become very trendy lately, and it’s being used
20:16   in a very nonchalant way by representatives of totally different ideologies.
20:21   But all seems to point to its being used in order to
20:25   designate “discussion”. Only it does sound better;
20:29   it is “trendy” and testifies to the higher intellectual ambitions
20:33   of the users. However, this notion — even though
20:37   it has a much older history— has currently become an element of a phraseology
20:41   of the New Marxism. And if it’s being used mindlessly even by
20:45   its opponents; it means that they adopted Marxist language,
20:49   which is, in itself, a testimony of the cultural domination of Marxism.
20:53   Therefore I’ll explain very briefly:
20:57   The formula of discussion was worked out back in the Middle Ages
21:01   by [the teachings of] the Scholastics, whose goal was searching for the Truth.
21:05   And the reference point for evaluating competing views
21:10   was knowledge about the reality, [which was] treated as
21:14   an account of the facts, independent of subjective interpretation or judgment.
21:18   One of the conditions of the discussion is precisely separating this,
21:22   what is the description of reality, thus the knowledge about the facts,
21:26   from subjective interpretations, evaluations, or
21:30   represented interests. That objective sphere is
21:34   the base for the verification of the legitimacy of positions,
21:38   and constitutes — you might say — an independent argument. In the new linguistic paradigm
21:42   such an objective knowledge about reality —
21:46   traditionally called the TRUTH — DOESN’T EXIST. Therefore,
21:50   a discussion about social life has to be organized
21:54   following other norms, and has to have a different goal.
21:58   SEMANTIC MARXISM — Compromise vs. Consensus
21:59   There are several Discourse Theories, but the most important one for
22:02   Jürgen Habermas 1929-
22:03   the New Marxism was created by the representative of the second generation of the Frankfurt School
22:04   Theory and Practice 1963, Knowledge and Human Interests 1968, Theories of Truth 1973, The Theory of Communicative Action 1981
22:07   and reformer of Critical Theory, Jürgen Habermas.
22:11   The very same person who criticized the Fascist attitude of Rudi Dutschke
22:15   at the Hannover Congress in 1967.
22:19   The main work by Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action,
22:23   published in 1981,
22:28   is a summary of the new concept of the Consensus Truth,
22:32   introduced in a book from 1973
22:36   called The Theories of the Truth. According to Habermas,
22:40   the veracity or falsehood of a statement — while there are no objective
22:44   verification criteria — are decided by their declarative force.
22:48   So the very fact that we state something,
22:52   demanding ipso facto that the statement be recognized as true,
22:56   is an argument determining definitely the veracity of the statement.
23:01   The substantiation of the veracity of such a claim
23:05   cannot be the obviousness of the experience, but the
23:09   process of the discourse, or the process during which the truth is being established.
23:13   When translated into normal language it means that
23:14   SEMANTIC MARXISM — Compromise vs. Consensus
23:17   the truth is that what — during the discourse — is being presented
23:21   as the truth and accepted as truth by all its participants.
23:25   Because the condition for truth is the consensus.
23:29   As it’s easy to guess that the reference point for the argumentation
23:33   supporting different positions cannot be reality.
23:37   It’s the power of persuasion that becomes the reference point.
23:41   It is not, however, hanging in the void.
23:43   SEMANTIC MARXISM — Discourse Ethic
23:45   Discourse Theory, whose goal is consensus,
23:50   creates its own space in which a vital role is being played by the notions
23:52   The goal of the Communicative Action and the Communicative Rationality is Consensus
23:54   of Communicative Rationality and the Communicative Ethic.
23:58   Communicative Rationality is a principle of thinking
24:02   whose point is consensus. It isn’t by definition contrary
24:06   with the rationality in the common understanding of the word, or logical thinking
24:10   of cause and effect; but that logical rationality isn’t the principle that is
24:14   mandatory and superior, because it has no support in
24:18   objectively stable reality.
24:20   The reality of the Discourse is inter-subjectivity, or the space independent of subjectivity which is contrary to the idea of Consensus and of non-existent objectivity
24:22   The reality which is the reference point is the so-called
24:26   inter-subjectivity, which is neither objectivity, because
24:30   objectivity doesn’t exist, nor subjectivity, because
24:34   subjectivity excludes consensus. The discourse
24:38   is the reference point for itself and establishes
24:43   its own discourse ethic. The principals of the Discourse Ethic
24:45   Karl-Otto Apel 1922-
24:47   were established by Habermas together with a longtime collaborator Karl-Otto Apel.
Discourse and Responsibility. The Problem with the Transition to Post-Conventional Morality — 1988
24:51   Consensus isn’t a compromise
24:55   or an elaboration of a position that can possibly be accepted by all,
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.
24:59   as a result of concessions by each party
25:03   from a clearly defined own position, view and interest.
25:07   Consensus in the understanding of Discourse Theory
25:11   doesn’t mean the agreement of all the parties with the elaborated position,
25:15   but the ABANDONMENT of the previous position
25:19   and the acceptance of the common position as ONE’S OWN.
25:23   Consensus doesn’t so much mean acceptance
25:27   as AFFIRMATION of the elaborated negotiating position. [i.e. not ACCEPTING,
25:31   but LOVING Big Brother] The prerequisite of the very adherence
25:34   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
25:36   to the discourse is the renunciation of conviction about the objective
25:40   legitimacy of one’s own position. It’s logical,
25:44   because if one is convinced of that legitimacy,
25:48   then one’s goal of participating in the discourse will be rather to justify the validity of one’s
25:52   own position, rather than to strive for acceptance, or even
25:56   affirmation of the common position, which isn’t the same
26:00   as one’s own position. Such an approach is therefore
26:04   contrary to the idea of consensus. Even though it might seem like
26:08   splitting hairs, it’s worth underlining here the importance of this aspect.
26:12   Because the ethic of the discourse goes beyond the frame of the
26:16   discourse itself in such a sense, that in its categories,
26:20   every precisely specified position, every point of view,
26:24   that someone would like to defend or that he even only considers
26:27   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.
26:28   as objectively legitimate, puts him immediately
26:32   in the position of the ENEMY OF CONSENSUS or the sower of discord,
26:37   conflict and HATE.
26:41   I’ll stubbornly reiterate: if anyone
26:45   uses the notion of ‘discourse’ instead of ‘discussion’ or agrees
26:49   to participate in a discourse and not in a discussion,
26:53   then he should realize that he is waiving
26:57   the right to have precise convictions,
27:01   or to buttress himself with the knowledge of reality
27:05   as an argument justifying those convictions.
27:09   What is presented here, very briefly, the Neo-Marxist conception
27:13   of the Common Consensus, is hard to translate into praxis,
27:17   because it’s indefinite what decides WHICH truth
27:22   as the result of the Discursive Consensus.
27:26   The answer, however, is simple: what is decisive about it is
27:30   which party succeeded in prompting the other party
27:34   to consider the position [of the first party] as their own.

11 thoughts on “The Truth is Determined Through Marxist Discourse

  1. It has been said that one of the spoils of victory is the writing of the history of the conflict to where the victor is the source of the truth. The result is propaganda on the part of the victor that makes the victor look good and competent and the defeated as the source of the trouble in which the victor was forced to intervene. Whereas Marxism cannot win on the battlefield (Groucho tried unsuccessfully) it has been forced to fight the fight in the boardroom, library, and convention hall with its ideas that have no basis in reality but are only mirror images of it (through the looking glass anyone?). Once the terms are redefined the battlefield is then reconfigured in the favor of the Marxist, a point that Hegel made in his arguments. As for me and my household, the Truth is seated on the Throne in Heaven and Jesus Christ came here to bear witness of it.

  2. …The Problem with the Transition to Post-Conventional Morality…
    The body count. Marxists, Leo Varadka and Pol Pot might all be damp in the cellar over the prospect of a huge number of own goals; I’ve always thought it bad form to kill 80% of your own citizens.

  3. Fundamentally I get it, things I know, but very rarely express, but the “hi-fluting” language twists practiced seem to take a lot of untangling.
    Not a way I want to live, or to have others practice that in my vicinity, as they only seek your resources and controlling power over you.

    The word hilarity did a double take, and then truth sorted it, and relaxing joy to see that nonsense sliced and diced. 🙂

    Candace Owens was on Capitol Hill again yesterday for another congressional hearing on race. One white liberal professor at the hearing started misquoting Candace and putting words in her mouth. Well it wasn’t long before Candace Owens got the mic again. …
    “Candace Owens EXPLODES on White Liberal Professor”
    Premiered in the past day, (21st?) Sept. 2019 …. 4 min. 59 secs.
    🙂 🙂

  4. Well, that’s all clear then.

    Actually, I think I do get it; reminds me of the mandatory “self-criticism” sessions in Communist China. Now they have even more Orwellian means of control.

  5. The latest conviction in physics is that the universe is just all kinds of “fields”—gravitational, bosonic, hadronic, gluonic, electrostatic—and guided by field equations which are all probabilistic. Particles are just quanta of the fields. This means that the word “noumena” used by Kant, the objective world that is really out there, and not influenced by our subjective view (which is hopelessly affected by our sense organs) AND our subjective world and feelings and thoughts about the noumena, all have to be a subset of the universe, and are all statistical. Truth of all kinds is statistical. This means that the truth, however we define it, is sometimes what we think it is and sometimes not what we think it is. This gets us away from postmodernism because if truths are all statistical we really can’t even use the word truth. It loses its hard meaning.

    • Let’s assume that all that exists in the universe are fields. If the best that we can do to describe the behavior of these fields is by use of statistical equations then perhaps that reflects the limitations of our understanding. It doesn’t mean that the fields themselves actually operate by probabilistic principles.

      Right now the best that we can do to predict the weather in Stockholm for next friday is to rely on statistical models. However, every bit of next friday’s weather will have been causally determined. None of it will have been the result of statistics or probabilities.

      I would disagree that “Truth of all kinds is statistical”. Our knowledge of the truth or falsity of any particular proposition may be uncertain. In those cases we assign probabilities to our truth assignment. However, just because the truth value of a proposition remains unknown to us doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a distinct truth value.

    • Noumena in the sense of “the world’s objects really existing out there” can also be applied to mathematical truths: if so, I see no probabilistic component of their veracity.

      Regarding the said “fields” – there’s very interesting interpretation of quantum physics developed by David Bohm (“hidden variables”). He basically claims that the nature of quantum phenomena is not probabilistic but governed by hidden variables = causal and deterministic (?) relationships between these “variables” – and only our ignorance of their hidden mechanisms (i.e. inability to discover and describe them) is resulting in probabilistic description of quantum phenomena (this is my wording so I apologize for any imprecise verbiage).

    • The truth is the predictions of the quantum theory, as borne out by not only experiments, but by the smart phones and miniature computers (basically the same thing) you use every day.

      What quantum mechanics showed is that the model of the universe and atoms based on balls and sticks and artist renditions is not accurate. That does not negate the concept of truth. Truth is the correspondence between what is said and reality. If we are unable to construct a verbal or graphic description of quantum mechanics, but have to relay on equations and statistical description, the concept of truth is not weakened. Will we be able to derive a more graphic picture of the universe eventually? Who knows? That is belief rather than science or even truth. Belief is not truth, in spite of what leftists desire.

  6. “Once everybody has agreed on what the Truth is … “, it will be changed the next day, and yesterday’s good Marxists will be purged by those holding the guns.

  7. (I prefer the term cultural Marxist to neo-Marxist, since cultural Marxist is older, every bit as descriptive, and has an actual theoretical base to it – although having a theoretical base does not imply it is true).

    The cultural Marxist view of the subjectivity of reality (the term reality becomes unreal in these circumstances) brings up an interesting problem concerning academic freedom and the ability of cultural-Marxist professors to hawk their wares.

    The thrust of the academic freedom concept is that anyone ought to be free to teach anything in a university, in which environment untrue ideas will be subject to consideration, debate, and refutation. Does a responsible university allow someone in a teaching position who teaches that untrue ideas are not subject to rational discussion, but are to be shouted down or suppressed by shunning and force?

    By allowing a cultural Marxist a position of authority over students, you give the reins of power to a person who will enforce his ideas through the reins of power, rather than through free discussion. This is, on the face of it, gross irresponsibility at best. A cultural Marxist as the head of an institution of learning will inevitably develop a reward structure designed to suppress independent thinking, either by students or by other faculty.

    Cultural Marxists should be allowed a paying position at educational institutions, but they should not be allowed to grade students, teach required courses, vote in committees, or write letters of recommendation on university letterheads. In other words, cultural Marxists, as advocates of the use of force and power to enforce conformity, should be given no actual power whatsoever.

    Would this cause a deterioration of what we think of as academic freedom? That train done left the station decades ago. It is a logical contradiction to assert that giving power to an advocate of coercion by power will advance free thought and freedom.

    What actually would need to be done is to withdraw federal government support of educational institutions. This includes the federal government not providing standards or certification bodies. You can have institutions or even states deciding on their own approach to encouraging critical thought, learning and freedom of ideas. With true alternatives available, authoritarian institutions or even states will simply lose customers. This is the nature of real truth, connection between philosophy or what is said, and reality.

Comments are closed.