Marxist Discourse: Abolishing the Norm

Posted on by

The video below is the third in a series about Marxist discourse by the Polish video commentator Krzysztof Karon (Previously: Part 1, Part 2).

Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:


Video link

Video transcript:

32:41   SEMANTIC MARXISM — Stigmatization of the opponent
32:44   The most important procedure stigmatizing the whole culture
32:48   (I underline WHOLE: entirely, with all the institutions
32:53   that constitute it: religion, family and formative child-rearing) was the — already accomplished
32:58   in the Enlightenment Dialectic [Dialektik der Aufklärung by Horkheimer and Adorno] —
33:01   juxtaposition of nature and culture, freedom and coercion,
33:05   and the blaming of the culture and Catholicism for
33:09   anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, or equating the culture
33:13   with all types of pathologies. This is not the place
33:17   for developing the subject, but the fact that stigmatizing
33:21   can be based on pure manipulation has no influence in its effectiveness.
33:25   Here’s a simple example:
33:29   the widely known sentence “Gott mit uns” or “God is with us”,
33:34   derived from Jewish tradition, used to be a warrior’s cry back in the time
33:38   of the late Roman Empire, when it was adopted by the Teutonic Order,
33:42   then the army of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden [Gustav II Adolph],
33:46   and in time it became as much the motto of Russian Empire
33:50   as of the German Empire, and it appeared on the buckles
33:54   of the German army in WW1. And finally also on the buckles of Hitler’s army.
34:02   The allegation that religion was a part of the ideology of National Socialism
34:06   SEEMS therefore obvious and justified. But outside of the possibility
34:10   of an emotional Discourse lies a rational explanation
34:14   that Nazi ideology drew on the one hand
34:19   from esotericism, and on the other hand from Germanic paganism,
34:23   the very same to which the [Institute of] Comparative Vandalism
34:27   of [founded by] Asger Jorn was referring to. And the notion of “god” written
34:31   on the buckles could have meant the Christian God,
34:35   but also the ancient Zeus or Germanic Odin.
34:39   In an emotional Discourse the simplest associations win,
34:43   and therefore, inevitably, the stigmatizing association that
34:47   links Christian culture with Nazism and the Holocaust is reinforced.
34:52   Creating in [the mind of] the audience for the Discourse
34:53   Pierre Bourdieu 1930-2002, The Sociology of the Symbolic Forms 1974, The Difference 1979
34:56   a conviction about a diverse and especially about the criminal inferiority
35:00   of an ideological opponent, and [in the mind] of the opponent
35:04   an inferiority complex and guilt, might be especially efficient
35:08   not in [tackling] the basic questions — which would awaken
35:12   the mind’s activity and force one to confront the arguments —
35:16   but in the sphere of small symbols, read intuitively,
35:20   which define the mutual status of the parties to the Discourse.
35:24   Those status symbols build the favor or reluctance of the audience
35:29   of the Discourse to its parties, and often decide about its result.
35:33   The question of so-called Symbolic Superiority [e.g. white privilege] and [Symbolic] Violence
35:36   [all the actions of the ‘privileged’] was researched and described
35:39   by the French Marxist Pierre Bourdieu in his 1975 book
35:42   “The Difference: Criticism of Social Judgment”.
35:51   SEMANTIC MARXISM — Norm — Normality
35:53   The fact that society is dominated
35:57   by the Left means the possibility of dictating to society
36:01   new rules of social life, and [that domination] might be efficient only then,
36:05   when those NEW RULES end up being recognized by the society as the NORM.
36:09   Or — simply put — as a normal state of things.
36:14   In the case of Classical Marxism it meant the necessity
36:18   for changing social norms to communist norms.
36:22   But in the case of the New Critical Marxism, which — by definition —
36:26   doesn’t recognize ANY norms, because the notion of “norm” is contrary
36:28   The notion of the Norm is contrary to the essence of the notion of Change
36:29   to the notion of “change”, the goal was
36:32   the LIQUIDATION OF THE NOTION OF THE NORM ALTOGETHER. In this endeavor
36:35   It was necessary not so much to question the very idea of the social norm —
36:42   because it’s not a sufficient reason to reject it —
36:46   but to show that the SOCIAL NORM IS THE SOURCE OF OPPRESSION AND SOCIAL INJUSTICE. In this process
36:55   an increasingly important role was supposed to be played by sexual minorities,
36:59   as [the group] the most in conflict with social norms,
37:03   and therefore the most exposed to oppression.
37:09   SEMANTIC MARXISM — New Injustice, New Proletariat
37:11   The question of adding homosexuals —
37:15   by this notion I’ll include, for the sake of brevity,
37:19   all types of non-heterosexuality, or rather
37:23   the activists of this milieu, because it’s not about the whole milieu,
37:27   but about its politically active margin — has a broader background.
37:32   Marxism is based on social injustice and unsolvable conflict.
37:36   And its mission is based on the liberation of a social group
37:40   disadvantaged by the system. At the beginning
37:44   Of the ’70s, when Western societies were benefiting from the advantages of the welfare state,
37:52   most of the anti-system postulates of the Left lost their raison d’être. Even in relation
37:56   to the Vietnam war — which caused an increased activity in pacifist movements —
38:00   [when] in 1973 the Paris Treaty,
38:04   which prepared the withdrawal of American troops, was signed,
38:08   and then in 1975, when all of Vietnam fell under communist rule,
38:13   Marxism found itself in a values-void.
38:18   A new unsolvable conflict and a new injustice were needed.
38:25   The history of the political activity
38:28   Compromise = Tolerance, Consensus = Affirmation
38:29   of homosexuals began with the 1969 [Stonewall] riots in New York,
38:37   after the police intervention at the Stonewall Club.
38:41   Beginning in 1971, organizations emerged that fought for the rights of homosexuals,
38:45   which also included politically active heterosexuals,
38:53   and in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association
38:57   removed homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses,
39:01   which accelerated the process of decriminalization of homosexuality.
39:06   I’m not going to tell you this story — it’s been described very well before in detail —
39:10   I’m only going to point out its functional aspect.
39:14   Well, the homosexual question started to gain importance only then,
39:18   when the notion of Habermas’ Discourse
39:22   and his Consensus Concept of the Truth emerged.
39:26   As I mentioned before, in the Consensus it’s NOT about an ACCEPTANCE
39:30   of a solution reached in a compromise, but about the recognition — as one’s OWN —
39:34   or even the AFFIRMATION of the result of the Consensus.
39:38   It goes far beyond the frame of traditional tolerance,
39:42   which is about respecting the right to be different,
39:46   and of deviation from the norm, but which DOESN’T QUESTION THE NORM ITSELF.
39:50   Only [the arrival of] the Ethic of the Discourse gave sexual minorities
39:55   not only the right to demand the recognition of the acceptability
39:59   of their behavior, but to — although not in a very consequential way —
40:03   TO RECOGNIZE THEM AS THE NORM.
40:07   Under the Ethic of the Discourse, everybody who excludes the possibility of
40:11   the recognition of the rights of homosexuals as decisive, is — by definition —
40:15   a SOWER OF DISCORD AND HATE. And because we are talking about
40:19   nuances determining the result of the Discourse, the fact of whether
40:22   it’s rationally justified or not doesn’t matter.
 

3 thoughts on “Marxist Discourse: Abolishing the Norm”

  1. It would seem from the above discourse that Marxism, in all of its iterations, is the weapon that is being used to lay siege to Judeo-Christian culture and society. While it does point out the shortcomings of the Judeo-Christian ethic in which it apparently falls short of the standards that Moses and then later Jesus proclaimed, it does not offer any assistance or solutions but rather calls for the destruction of the Judeo-Christian ethic, society and culture and then replacement with itself even though it offers no solutions but only points out faults and shortcomings of what it is criticizing.
    What comes to mind is a picture of barbaric hordes attacking a fortified city and searching for weaknesses in the city’s defenses. Attacking poverty didn’t work as the defenses were shorn up with public assistance. Attacking colonialism and imperialism didn’t work as we realized Vietnam was nothing more than a mosquito-infested swamp of a rice paddy. Sexual orientation didn’t work as even the homosexuals valued the privacy of their intimate relations. Gender isn’t working as it has been shown that the drugs involved in the gender modification has resulted in more than 6,000 deaths.
    So yes, the siege of the “Gates of Vienna” (had to say that, grin) from without was unsuccessful except for the damage it did to the resolve of the inhabitants of the city as neither the Rohirrim nor the Polish rode to the rescue. So now the assault is from within. A narrative has been selected and an ethos has been adopted that opens the gates to the hordes in the effort to civilize them over the protestations of the city’s inhabitants. The same Marxist dialectic is being used, but now by the princes of the city against its own population. The population is now being told, accept the new narrative and promote it or else face estrangement from society, unemployment, poverty, and being cast upon the dung hill where the rest of the human refuse has been disposed of.
    Very well then, have the barbaric hordes as your new citizens and the consequences that are being visited upon you as they slaughter the citizens who once defended your realm. As for myself, I refuse to dirty my hands with your perfidy as my citizenship is no longer of this world. Your judgment is certain and sure and soon forthcoming. As for your Marxism, at least Groucho was funny but Karl made no sense at all.

    • Karoń gives no quotes or notes from Marx, because he is talking about Frankfurt School Marxists.

Comments are closed.