Krzysztof Karoń: A man not raised to culture, or incapable of voluntary, creative, useful work, must be a parasite
My interviewer is Krzysztof Karoń – a thinker, writer and author of the best-selling book "The past of Anticulture". The subject of the interview concerns the education and education system, which is anti-cultural in its present form.
You are the author of the book "History of Anticulture". How can this phenomenon be characterized, what is the anticulture described?
Anticulture is an ideology of power gained by the support of parasites, or people who want to steal.
Reading this position shows that anticulture is simply a phenomenon wider than Marxism. Why Marxism, is it now dominated by any version or mutation?
The concept of anticulture is broader than Marxism due to the fact that Marxism, whether we like it or not, is associated with russian communism, in this russian version. On the another hand, Anticulture is simply a broader phenomenon in the sense that it besides covers this ideology, the origin of which is Marxism and which is besides applied by supporters of capitalism. This difference occurred in a crucial way only erstwhile capitalism changed its character. Industrial capitalism is over, creating goods and the era of financial capitalism producing money from nothing has begun. On the another hand, the essence of anticulture remains Marxism due to the fact that Marxism was the first and in fact the only 1 to present the tactics of gaining power through the support of the parasitic society, or 1 that cannot quit the power it chose. She must support her due to the fact that she is the guarantor of her further parasitising. And all subsequent mutations of Marxism including leftist libertarianism, but besides right-wing libertarianism, they usage all the tools that Marxists have worked out without exception, by making this revision of moving distant from economical issues, where relationships with reality are easier to demonstrate, for the benefit of the all-human, anthropological sphere, where the criteria are actually established on a regular basis, without limitations arising from the principles of logical thinking.
Please elaborate on what Frankfurt School was and why it did this review. Does the revision mean that they have gone distant from actual Marxism, or have they simply changed certain methods while remaining with Marks' basics?
In 1985 Jurgen Habermas explained it, saying Frankfurt School She thought about Marxian intuitions without giving up Marxian intentions. He wrote this in his book “Discurs of Modernism”. Whether or not an ideology is Marxism is determined by the definition at which I first gave it. It is the ideology of power, which is achieved with the support of the parasitic society. And all another criteria are irrelevant due to the fact that this definition includes both Marxo-engelso Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, and Frankfurt Marxism, and subsequent mutations to modern times, with 1 exception: but Stalinism due to the fact that Stalin He was a Communist, but he stopped being a Marxist, he left. Stalin and his followers.
Whether, then, dialectic materialism, thesis about class struggle, the inevitability of revolution, armed coup, etc. are just certain projections of Marx from a peculiar time, developed in a peculiar socio-political situation, but in fact they could be changed, due to the fact that the sense of ideology is different. It's about gaining power with the support of the masses, is that correct?
With the support of the parasitic society. Importantly, Marxism is not a philosophy, it is an ideology. This is not distinguished by philosophers and so they cannot realize Marxism. They effort to realize Marxism utilizing philosophical categories. That's how they fool society. It's a terrible mistake. Marx, if you treat Marx in philosophical terms, he was a “philosopher” before writing the “Communist organization Manifesto”. Marx's only meaningful contribution to doctrine is dialectical materialism. And to historiosophy – historical materialism. And they have nothing to do with Marxism as an ideology. In 1845, Marx divided up with doctrine (11 thesis on Feuerbach), and in 1848 he published “Manifest of the Communist Party“ That is, the ideological plan to gain power with terror. Taking Marks' communicative seriously about the liberation of laborers or proletariat from poorness is the communicative told to a stupid mob and if anyone wants to believe it, it's his business.
dialectical materialism is simply a philosophical justification for Marxism, and so is Marxism inactive Marxism without this materialism? due to the fact that quite a few people just connect it, which is that 1 is in the other.
It's not included. What can be called dialectic materialism is the meaning of a later product and has nothing to do with its ideology. The 2 most crucial elements in Marxism are the tactics of gaining power and the promise, a imagination of the future after gaining power. Liberation can happen by looting. Return what was plundered. dialectical materialism is simply a philosophical superstructure created by Marx's successors. They interpreted any conclusions from what Marks wrote. This was called dialectic materialism and historical materialism.
The essence of Marx's work in doctrine is simply a imagination of a return from culture to modern primary community. It's a pre-cultural phase, actually. It's missing. A certain order of things is important. I'm not curious in talking about Marxism as a philosophy. Marx's doctrine and ideology are 2 different things. Marx's doctrine is after the fact added a justification for bandit ideology. Marxism is before gaining power and after gaining power. Parasites They let you to gain power, but then you gotta take them for a mouth erstwhile the economical situation does not let you to continue. Philosophers do not realize that there is simply a fundamental threat in Marxism. If it is taken into account, all the stories about the request to liberate the proletariat are lost in meaning.
So what was the intellectual work of the Frankfurters? What did they change about Marxism? Or did they just adjust to the conditions of the day?
They didn't change anything in Marxism about the essence. All they did was change the conflict. Marxism in all its subsequent versions was an ideology of liberating a helpless victim. Proletariat He liberated himself and thanked the Marxists. Then there was a distribution of capitalism stopped later by changing the formula: change in financial capitalism. The Frankfurters had to identify a fresh victim to refuse the proletariat, which would justify the collapse of the system. The victim and the oppressor. And this victim was an instinctive human soul whose primary request is sex.
But it's not a different approach, it's a different distribution of accents or a deeper focus on a peculiar aspect.
It's just an exchange of elements in the basic strategy of the liberation of Marxism.
But in Marxism, the liberation, for example, of women from families or children sexually enslaved, was already there from the beginning, so to speak, only the Frankfurters a small bit like a mirror brought the sphere closer, concentrated on it, right?
We are not able to interpret Engels' intentions in specified a way that leads to unquestionable conclusions. There's a direct connection. The crucial thing is that Engels wrote his book after the First Volume of Capital, erstwhile it was known that Marxism had failed, Social democracy It arose and began to develop. Only Frankfurters after tamed ReichaAnd by Reich Freud They created a pseudo-scientific theory, an underbuilding to the liberation scheme. The Frankfurters created a complete imagination of the sexual revolution.
Do you, then, believe that Marxism should be read as an ideology that is in the improvement phase and that it was created by many people alternatively than read like the Scriptures themselves by Marx's book, as if his word were revealed here?
I'd call it purging, adjusting. The puzzle is the same – power is gained with the support of parasites, and the strategy that will arise must go bankrupt. And in order not to fall, panic is necessary. And will it be Terror intellectual or physical, it doesn't substance anymore. The pattern is completely the same. The first task in human past supported by parasites targeting looting. The Protestants stole the church property, but then they worked. And this is about looting and slapping. Of course, then there's terror, coercion, exploitation.
So what is the production of parasites now, how is it done?
They're raised, actually, they're made. Disables, eliminates the cultural education system. A man who is not raised to culture, or incapable of voluntary, creative, useful work, must be a parasite.
Can a individual who performs sexually without cultural limitations be a good worker?
Are you asking about an adult or a child?
Adult
It's just that Anti-cultural education leads to no adult man. Indeed, this anti-cultural education results in infantilism. Which is the condition of an adult in which he thinks like a nine-year-old, 12-year-old kid at most. That's how he can realize the world. Stopping human development. Morbidity in a medical sense.
Because the point is that specified a socially and mentally impaired man can easy be controlled?
A man who does not decently pass certain stages of improvement is incapable to realize reality. He can't be responsible. The deprivation of education is the inability to master the qualifications that are needed so that a man does not gotta steal. That's what it comes down to. If you form a man so that he won't be able to produce good goods for another people, he'll gotta steal. There's no 3rd choice. No, there's a way out. He can get it from you. Soros Money. From different foundations. But he can't make his own money. That's how you buy parasitic elites.
Thank you for talking to me.
Thank you.
