Of the ’70s, when Western societies were benefiting from the advantages of the welfare state, most of the anti-system postulates of the Left lost their raison d’être. Actually, I think I do get it; reminds me of the mandatory “self-criticism” sessions in Communist China. of the Discourse to its parties, and often decide about its result. Such an approach is therefore, contrary to the idea of consensus. as [the group] the most in conflict with social norms. 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. The discourse, is the reference point for itself and establishes, its own discourse ethic. As for myself, I refuse to dirty my hands with your perfidy as my citizenship is no longer of this world. In an emotional Discourse the simplest associations win, and therefore, inevitably, the stigmatizing association that. The question of so-called Symbolic Superiority [e.g. in a very nonchalant way by representatives of totally different ideologies. designate “discussion”. which also included politically active heterosexuals, and in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association. 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.

Now written as a chapter in Rational Freedom vol 4 The Good Life The recommendation to take rights seriously (Dworkin) is based upon the notion that all individuals, by virtue of their humanity, are endowed with a set of absolute and inviolable moral Consensus in the understanding of Discourse Theory. That objective sphere is. and therefore the most exposed to oppression. 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. the widely known sentence “Gott mit uns” or “God is with us”, derived from Jewish tradition, used to be a warrior’s cry back in the time.

Belief is not truth, in spite of what leftists desire. The most complete library of Marxism with content in 62 languages and the works of over 720 authors readily accessible by archive, sujbect, or history. juxtaposition of nature and culture, freedom and coercion, and the blaming of the culture and Catholicism for, anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, or equating the culture, with all types of pathologies. It is a logical contradiction to assert that giving power to an advocate of coercion by power will advance free thought and freedom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-sgrki4pu4. but in the sphere of small symbols, read intuitively. 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). Communicative Rationality is a principle of thinking, whose point is consensus. Marxist Discourse: Abolishing the Norm. 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). In this process. None of it will have been the result of statistics or probabilities. 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. 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. not ACCEPTING, but LOVING Big Brother] The prerequisite of the very adherence, 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, to the discourse is the renunciation of conviction about the objective.
but about its politically active margin — has a broader background. The Truth is Determined Through Marxist Discourse, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-sgrki4pu4, The notion of “discourse” has become very trendy lately, and it’s being used. 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. Only it does sound better; it is “trendy” and testifies to the higher intellectual ambitions, of the users.

Even in relation, to the Vietnam war — which caused an increased activity in pacifist movements —. 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?). Creating in [the mind of] the audience for the Discourse, Pierre Bourdieu 1930-2002, The Sociology of the Symbolic Forms 1974, The Difference 1979, a conviction about a diverse and especially about the criminal inferiority, of an ideological opponent, and [in the mind] of the opponent, an inferiority complex and guilt, might be especially efficient, not in [tackling] the basic questions — which would awaken, the mind’s activity and force one to confront the arguments —.

Consensus doesn’t so much mean acceptance. 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. So now the assault is from within.

According to Habermas, the veracity or falsehood of a statement — while there are no objective. the base for the verification of the legitimacy of positions, and constitutes — you might say — an independent argument. This includes the federal government not providing standards or certification bodies. Marxism is based on social injustice and unsolvable conflict. to participate in a discourse and not in a discussion, then he should realize that he is waiving, or to buttress himself with the knowledge of reality. The formula of discussion was worked out back in the Middle Ages.

When translated into normal language it means that, the truth is that what — during the discourse — is being presented. This is not the place, for developing the subject, but the fact that stigmatizing. white privilege] and [Symbolic] Violence, [all the actions of the ‘privileged’] was researched and described, by the French Marxist Pierre Bourdieu in his 1975 book. of homosexuals began with the 1969 [Stonewall] riots in New York. 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. So the very fact that we state something. discourse itself in such a sense, that in its categories.

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. to consider the position [of the first party] as their own. I’m only going to point out its functional aspect. supporting different positions cannot be reality. is an argument determining definitely the veracity of the statement. 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. In the case of Classical Marxism it meant the necessity. Attacking poverty didn’t work as the defenses were shorn up with public assistance. and then in 1975, when all of Vietnam fell under communist rule. [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]. relationships between these “variables” – and only our ignorance of their hidden mechanisms (i.e. is a summary of the new concept of the Consensus Truth. A new unsolvable conflict and a new injustice were needed.

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. And finally also on the buckles of Hitler’s army. Postmodernism is, in some sense, a very cynical and pessimistic offshoot of Marxian and even neo-Marxist thought that took up very deeply with French structuralism, which saw the construction of society through the way language is organized in complicated webs of meaning called “discourses.” As for your Marxism, at least Groucho was funny but Karl made no sense at all. The allegation that religion was a part of the ideology of National Socialism, SEEMS therefore obvious and justified.