Posting in progress...
Feb. 6th, 2016 00:34![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sov0k1. Human is a collective, and the so called "person" objectively does not exist. Likewise, in reality, there is no so called "god" or the so called "soul" (in relation to the latter term, the term "person" is a euphemism).
It's clear, that the illusion of "person" emerges along the illusion of "free will" in the individual brain of a separately taken ape of a certain species when it finds itself in a certain environment, of which an essential element for the apes, as well as for all the political animal species, consists in the social relations of the specimens within the collective.
That is, "human" - in relation to each specific ape called Joe Doe or Vasya Pupkin is environment. And those very Joe Doe and Vasya Pupkin are "humans" only so long as they are part of that environment for the rest of the members of a given collective of the species called Homo sapiens.
In fact, any allusion to the so called "person" is, at best, a birthmark of anthropocentrism on the body of scientific world outlook.
2. Sapience and reason cannot be a property of a single member of a collective (or of a nonexistent "person"). Sapience and reason may (or may not) be a property only of a collective taken as a whole. Sapience and reason may emerge out of and continue to exist in the social relations within a collective. Naturally, emergence and existence of sapience and reason require that the collective consisted of specimens with suitable (powerful enough) brains. Yet this is only a necessary, but not the sufficient condition. Without enough number of specimens with powerful enough brains organized via certain social relations into an intraspecimen neural network, no semblance of sapience and reason can emerge and maintain itself.
3. The only actual concept of the so called "freedom" is when it is defined as the realization of necessity via reason and sapience. From which it follows that "human freedom" may be attainable only at the level of a collective. And then again, without collective, free or not, there is no human at all.
n+1. A revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no interests of his own, no business, no feelings, no attachments, no property, not even a name. All in him is consumed by a single exceptional interest, the sole thought, the sole passion: revolution.
The nature of a true revolutionary precludes any romanticism, sensibility, rapturousness and ecstasy. It precludes even personal grudges and vengeance. The revolutionary passion must become incessant everyday mood in him and combine itself with cold calculation. Always and everywhere he must refrain from doing what his personal desires might be inclining him to do, but do what the general interest of the revolution demands of him.
Rigorous towards himself, he must be rigorous towards others as well. All tender and pampering feelings of kinship, friendliness, love, gratitude, and even honor must be crushed in him with the sole cold passion for the revolutionary cause. He has only one comfort, solace, reward and satisfaction - the ultimate and total victory of the revolution.
n+2. A revolutionary, not only in words, but both in action and deep down in his conscience, has broken all connection to the bourgeois order and the entire so called civil society, to all laws, proprieties, conventionalities and morality of this society. Towards it he is a sworn, relentless and merciless enemy, and he keeps living in this society only to bring it closer to its destruction. Living in this society, a revolutionary must maintain secrecy about his true face and pretend to be what he is not. Revolutionaries must infiltrate all layers and institutions of this society - banks, corporations, armies, police, government bureaucracy, public media, art, churches, mobs etc. - in order to, when the right time comes, betray all that to the revolutionary cause.
A revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and loathes the present day morality in all its motives and displays. To him, everything that contributes to the victory of the revolution is moral; everything that delays it is an immoral offense and enormity.
Ruthless against the state and the bourgeois society, he expects no mercy from them for himself. Between them and the revolutionaries a war of extermination is ongoing, either an open or a concealed one, but continuous and irreconcilable. Every day a revolutionary must be ready for death and torture.
A revolutionary is a doomed man. It falls upon the future generations to build the world anew, whereas the task of the present generation of revolutionaries - born yet in the old world and exposed to all its vices - is its complete destruction. From this it follows that the present generation of revolutionaries must perish with the old world, and not a single one of them will live to behold the oncoming of the bright future of the cosmocratic proletarian society with his own eyes.
One, who values kinship, friendship, romantic love, or love of anything so much that it can stop his hand from exacting the revolutionary sentence upon this old world, is not a revolutionary.
n+3. A comrade of a revolutionary can only be such a man who has actively proved that he shares the revolutionary cause. The measure of friendship, loyalty and the rest of obligations in relation towards a comrade is defined by his utility to the cause of the revolution.
The strength of the revolutionary cause is in the solidarity of the revolutionaries. Revolutionary comrades sharing the same level of strategic and tactical understanding should, if possible, discuss all important affairs together and decide on them unanimously. In execution of plans thus decided upon, everyone must be able to rely on himself.
Every comrade should have a troop of second and third rate revolutionaries (that is, not fully initiated). He must regard them as the part of the common revolutionary resource pool put in his individual discretion. He must expend this part of resources economically, trying to achieve maximum utility. Likewise, he regards himself as a resource as well, meant to be spent on the revolutionary cause. Only he cannot expend himself by his individual choice without consent of a committee of the fully initiated comrades.
If a comrade falls in trouble, revolutionaries must decide whether to save him not on the basis of some personal feelings, but only on the basis of advancing the revolutionary cause. Therefore they have to weigh the usefulness of the comrade, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the expenditure of the revolutionary resources necessary to get him out of trouble. Whichever proves to be higher, that should decide the course of action.
n+4. The same measure of usefulness for the revolutionary cause is to be applied to the enemies of the revolution. Some of them may be intimidated or blackmailed into serving the revolutionaries' orders, to do the "dirty work" or whatever is necessitated by the current political situation and the tactics of the revolutionary organization. Sometimes a worst bourgeois scoundrel may become useful by the very power of mass hatred he is capable of inciting with his reactionary politics, driving the masses to open revolt, while himself being quite clueless of ways to really harm the revolutionary organization.
Some doctrinaire liberal or social-fascist good-for-nothing pseudo-progressive types need to be pushed forward to become decoys upon whom the retribution of the bourgeois regime falls, missing the true revolutionaries who present the only real danger for that regime. When most of these types go into oblivion, some may be remolded by the regime's wrath into third an second rate revolutionaries.
It's clear, that the illusion of "person" emerges along the illusion of "free will" in the individual brain of a separately taken ape of a certain species when it finds itself in a certain environment, of which an essential element for the apes, as well as for all the political animal species, consists in the social relations of the specimens within the collective.
That is, "human" - in relation to each specific ape called Joe Doe or Vasya Pupkin is environment. And those very Joe Doe and Vasya Pupkin are "humans" only so long as they are part of that environment for the rest of the members of a given collective of the species called Homo sapiens.
In fact, any allusion to the so called "person" is, at best, a birthmark of anthropocentrism on the body of scientific world outlook.
2. Sapience and reason cannot be a property of a single member of a collective (or of a nonexistent "person"). Sapience and reason may (or may not) be a property only of a collective taken as a whole. Sapience and reason may emerge out of and continue to exist in the social relations within a collective. Naturally, emergence and existence of sapience and reason require that the collective consisted of specimens with suitable (powerful enough) brains. Yet this is only a necessary, but not the sufficient condition. Without enough number of specimens with powerful enough brains organized via certain social relations into an intraspecimen neural network, no semblance of sapience and reason can emerge and maintain itself.
3. The only actual concept of the so called "freedom" is when it is defined as the realization of necessity via reason and sapience. From which it follows that "human freedom" may be attainable only at the level of a collective. And then again, without collective, free or not, there is no human at all.
n+1. A revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no interests of his own, no business, no feelings, no attachments, no property, not even a name. All in him is consumed by a single exceptional interest, the sole thought, the sole passion: revolution.
The nature of a true revolutionary precludes any romanticism, sensibility, rapturousness and ecstasy. It precludes even personal grudges and vengeance. The revolutionary passion must become incessant everyday mood in him and combine itself with cold calculation. Always and everywhere he must refrain from doing what his personal desires might be inclining him to do, but do what the general interest of the revolution demands of him.
Rigorous towards himself, he must be rigorous towards others as well. All tender and pampering feelings of kinship, friendliness, love, gratitude, and even honor must be crushed in him with the sole cold passion for the revolutionary cause. He has only one comfort, solace, reward and satisfaction - the ultimate and total victory of the revolution.
n+2. A revolutionary, not only in words, but both in action and deep down in his conscience, has broken all connection to the bourgeois order and the entire so called civil society, to all laws, proprieties, conventionalities and morality of this society. Towards it he is a sworn, relentless and merciless enemy, and he keeps living in this society only to bring it closer to its destruction. Living in this society, a revolutionary must maintain secrecy about his true face and pretend to be what he is not. Revolutionaries must infiltrate all layers and institutions of this society - banks, corporations, armies, police, government bureaucracy, public media, art, churches, mobs etc. - in order to, when the right time comes, betray all that to the revolutionary cause.
A revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and loathes the present day morality in all its motives and displays. To him, everything that contributes to the victory of the revolution is moral; everything that delays it is an immoral offense and enormity.
Ruthless against the state and the bourgeois society, he expects no mercy from them for himself. Between them and the revolutionaries a war of extermination is ongoing, either an open or a concealed one, but continuous and irreconcilable. Every day a revolutionary must be ready for death and torture.
A revolutionary is a doomed man. It falls upon the future generations to build the world anew, whereas the task of the present generation of revolutionaries - born yet in the old world and exposed to all its vices - is its complete destruction. From this it follows that the present generation of revolutionaries must perish with the old world, and not a single one of them will live to behold the oncoming of the bright future of the cosmocratic proletarian society with his own eyes.
One, who values kinship, friendship, romantic love, or love of anything so much that it can stop his hand from exacting the revolutionary sentence upon this old world, is not a revolutionary.
n+3. A comrade of a revolutionary can only be such a man who has actively proved that he shares the revolutionary cause. The measure of friendship, loyalty and the rest of obligations in relation towards a comrade is defined by his utility to the cause of the revolution.
The strength of the revolutionary cause is in the solidarity of the revolutionaries. Revolutionary comrades sharing the same level of strategic and tactical understanding should, if possible, discuss all important affairs together and decide on them unanimously. In execution of plans thus decided upon, everyone must be able to rely on himself.
Every comrade should have a troop of second and third rate revolutionaries (that is, not fully initiated). He must regard them as the part of the common revolutionary resource pool put in his individual discretion. He must expend this part of resources economically, trying to achieve maximum utility. Likewise, he regards himself as a resource as well, meant to be spent on the revolutionary cause. Only he cannot expend himself by his individual choice without consent of a committee of the fully initiated comrades.
If a comrade falls in trouble, revolutionaries must decide whether to save him not on the basis of some personal feelings, but only on the basis of advancing the revolutionary cause. Therefore they have to weigh the usefulness of the comrade, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the expenditure of the revolutionary resources necessary to get him out of trouble. Whichever proves to be higher, that should decide the course of action.
n+4. The same measure of usefulness for the revolutionary cause is to be applied to the enemies of the revolution. Some of them may be intimidated or blackmailed into serving the revolutionaries' orders, to do the "dirty work" or whatever is necessitated by the current political situation and the tactics of the revolutionary organization. Sometimes a worst bourgeois scoundrel may become useful by the very power of mass hatred he is capable of inciting with his reactionary politics, driving the masses to open revolt, while himself being quite clueless of ways to really harm the revolutionary organization.
Some doctrinaire liberal or social-fascist good-for-nothing pseudo-progressive types need to be pushed forward to become decoys upon whom the retribution of the bourgeois regime falls, missing the true revolutionaries who present the only real danger for that regime. When most of these types go into oblivion, some may be remolded by the regime's wrath into third an second rate revolutionaries.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-02-06 06:44 (UTC)- why?
no subject
Date: 2016-02-07 17:32 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-11 03:11 (UTC)You may as well say: "There is no such thing as a personal computer, because nowadays every really working PC is (at least from time to time) connected to the Internet and shares information with other computers; moreover, the software of every computer has been created by means of other computers, etc. Therefore, PC does not exist". Has this statement got any sense and practical meaning?
no subject
Date: 2016-02-14 19:38 (UTC)As for the limits of applicability, you're at plain self-contradiction here. It is the "simple specific episodes of real life" that warrant statements with narrow limits of applicability, determined by the very simplicity and specificity of the cases in question. But theoretical assertions (regardless whether they are right or wrong, correct or incorrect) essentially have quite broad limits of applicability, as they more often than not, in the course of their formulation, are based on some generalizations, etc.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-18 15:31 (UTC)I was not referring to "the general" and "the particular", as you ascribed to me in terms of formal logic. This discipline ignores the contence of statements, which itself may involve methodological conclusions and thus establish limits of the statements' applicability.Your statement is surely one of those sayings.
When you say "personality does not exist", "human is a collective", agreeing to deal only with the "collective human", you deny the sense of existence of main branches in Psychology and Pedagogics. You have set this limit yourself. You even deny the right to existence of our little common favourite Psychiatry.
This problem is common for many "marxists" who practice the so-called "monism" as a method. The problem concerns not "the general" and "the particular", but "the whole" and "the parts", and the intricacies of the latters' relationships cannot be avoided when you choose the practical approach. You are not the Lord almighty, after all, you can impact the whole object (especially if it is a society) only affecting its parts - but preliminarily you have to recognize their existence.
By the way, this is not the only flaw in your reasoning. So, you are quite wrong putting an equal sign between "soul" and "personality". I do not know what the "soul" is, and it most likely does not exist, but "personality" can be defined, for example, as "a temporal reflection of reality on the individual mind", or "a total amount of individual experience" etc. On the whole, you are right: personality is a reflection - but the reflection does exist. This image is not outside, but inside the brain (a set of your beloved electro-chemical chains). Of course, this reflection is incomplete and erroneous. But errors also do exist.
By the way once more, unless you specify the meaning of the word "collective", your "human" cannot claim to exist either. What is "a collective"? Colleagues (do they really mean so much)? The family? The society? Or maybe you imagine the God's Chosen Nation, Collectively Carrying His Immortal Soul?
Do you really believe in the collective soul? Otherwise why did you choose such a strange inaccurate analogy ("collective electro-chemistry"), denying the existence of a personal "soul", but tacitly presupposing the actual existence of The Collective One?
(To speak the truth, the electro-chemical processes in my body are indeed my own. I may writhe in pain and suffering - nobody else gives a shit: others do not share my biochemistry. Only your peculiar wonderful mind could create the idea of "collective electro-chemistry", because you confused general principle regarded as an idea with its multiple practical manifestations).
Although, after all, your thesis works fine in the sphere of Cultural Studies. Here the comparison of culture with software (mentioned by korzh18), may be of some help in the struggle against capitalist copyright. Besides, your approach works perfectly in some other areas, in History, for example, when you just have to record and explain the events (but to influence them is beyond your competence).
no subject
Date: 2016-02-21 18:31 (UTC)Psychology is "a study of the soul", and as such a pseudoscience. As of now, the "main branches of psychology" have already been ripped apart by sociology and biology (see, neuroscience). And that which tries to maintain itself as "psychology proper" is nothing but idealistic sophistry. Do you, by any chance, suggest that modern chemistry and astronomy should have never got going because they involved the denial of the "main branches" of, respectively, alchemy and astrology?
> you can impact the whole object (especially if it is a society) only affecting its parts
This is just ludicrous. Now you mix up proletarian revolutionaries with the Jehovah's Witnesses, doing their door-to-door stuff, while the very essence of the Marxist-Leninist theory of revolution is that of mass action and the Mass Line.
> personality is a reflection - but the reflection does exist.
OK, but, first, reflection is a process, not an entity. A by-product, an effect of action, not an active subject. Therefore, you still have to agree with the statements like "There is no such entity as personality", "Personality does not exist as any sort of active subject", etc. And, secondly, nobody in his right mind focuses any attention on the reflection, rather than on the object reflected. Of course, the laws of nature, affecting the process of reflection, may be of certain interest, but only as the means of getting an ever more clearer image of the reflected object, while the process of reflection in and of itself remains utterly unimportant and negligible.
> What is "a collective"?
Any group bound together by cooperative social interaction. As of the 21st century, the entire human race constitutes a single human collective, since on the basis of modern capitalist economic activity every Homo sapiens ape specimen is linked to every other via a chain of cooperative socio-economic relations. Families, nations, teams of co-workers, etc., are, in effect, subcollectives of the single human collective that exists on this planet. And no specimen, "taken separately" - outside of the collective, is either "human" or "sapient".
> electro-chemical processes in my body are indeed my own. I may writhe in pain and suffering - nobody else gives a shit
Your body is a body of an ape. It is an ape that writhes in pain and suffering. The human is that which doesn't give a shit (or does). And I don't mean empathy here (many other species are capable of empathy too), which is but one of precursors to (collective) sapience and reason. I mean an informed, calculated and intelligent decision, whether the pain and suffering of your ape body is or is not of any social, that is, collective importance.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-22 11:34 (UTC)1. "Now you mix up proletarian revolutionaries with the Jehovah's Witnesses, doing their door-to-door stuff, while the very essence of the Marxist-Leninist theory of revolution is that of mass action and the Mass Line".
No, it's you who can't tell "Marxist-Leninist theory" from Marxist-Leninist practice - and just discussing my remark that theory and practice somewhat differ! I spoke about practice, and you answered about theory. Practically, "masses" do not make History, this is not Marxism, this is Tolstoyan bullshit. History is made by organized groups of people. And the man who said: "Дайте нам организацию революционеров - и мы перевернём Россию!" - knew this fact very well. It seemed to me that you are also aware of it (who mentioned Netchaev not so long ago?).
Yes, my friend, a revolutionary organization is made by means of person-to-person stuff for many years. All the rest is just empty words.
2. "I mean an informed, calculated and intelligent decision, whether the pain and suffering of your ape body is or is not of any social, that is, collective importance".
Your "collective human" is, in fact, a reflection of a reflection. Moreover, it is exactly "C.H.", that is turned and projected somewhere outside, beyond the "ape body". If you deny the existence of "personality", that of "collective human" is much more problematic and is discredited by the same arguments, which you have used against "personality".
no subject
Date: 2016-02-22 12:31 (UTC)Lol. Masses making history is the most basic tenet of Marxism. And a revolutionary organization can make a difference only insofar as it is empowered by a mass movement, springs out of a mass movement, serves as the conscious element of a certain mass movement, etc. Otherwise it's just Blanquism, a "hero and crowd" theory.
> it is exactly "C.H.", that is turned and projected somewhere outside, beyond the "ape body"
No, the human collective exists objectively as an active subject and it is that which is "projected", only more or less partially, of course, in each of the billions of cases, into the ape body (brain).
no subject
Date: 2016-02-22 19:01 (UTC)There wasn't much matter in the conversation, but thank you for the manner.
no subject
Date: 2016-02-15 05:54 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-17 12:19 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-17 15:22 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-06 10:07 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-07 17:33 (UTC)Окончательное решение проблемы свободы личности
Date: 2016-02-06 16:10 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-06 16:37 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-07 17:34 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-06 17:45 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-06 18:45 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-07 17:35 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-07 17:44 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-07 19:02 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-07 19:44 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-07 18:01 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-14 15:29 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-14 19:20 (UTC)С чего это вы так подумали?
no subject
Date: 2016-02-15 05:34 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-02-15 07:08 (UTC)А так, очевидно же, что отрицание личности в парадигму тоталитарной космократии укладывается на раз-два, нет?
no subject
Date: 2016-02-15 11:28 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-05-18 07:31 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-05-20 22:38 (UTC)