* * *

Isn’t subreption a psychologism? It educes from a perspective qua soi-disant apodictic. Is subreption then an imperative gentitive? ”Subreption”, therefore, as concealing one’s own ignorance, or the possibility of fallacy. Possessing the void. Is self-deception a necessary part of polity? Isn’t any valorization- so prescinded- but an elision of… possibility? But which conviction [amphiboly: transgression] is primary? Evidence made by being lost. Isn’t that the haecceity of antinomy? The essence of recursion is this subsumed mis-understanding, the lack of justification, but utilizing from faith and fidelity in/to a self it cannot understand. This Hegelian noble/beautiful soul, the romantic, who subverts himself. Didn’t Bataille integrate this successfully in his non-sense? The failure of perspective, judgement and primacy/time?

* * *

Soporific thoughts or the moribund are preferred? Where would Blanchot reside? Is there a field of asphodels in central park? Does a lethean rill run somewhere off the hudson? Would not the nouveau irony be to sleep in the middle of the street? Is that not as prodigal? Are the dreams not more surfeit?

The ’self critique’ was because Khrushchev wanted to take some different directions from those of Stalin and felt crucifying Stalin would be very helpful to such aims. There was talk in the 80’s of rehabilitating Stalin; that great harm had been done to the nation by such a ’self critique’, but they decided against it.

“And yet it seems incredible that this man, who would probably have been hard pressed to count to fifty, could be blamed for the death of countless millions in a “mechanized” fashion morally equivalent to the Judeocide of the Nazis. Speaking as the “sociological realist” I am, I would hazard a guess about the true history of that time in the Soviet Union: really, Stalin exercised too little control over the bureaucracy of incarceration and not, except in the martyring of the “old Bolsheviks”, too much.

Perhaps what really happened was that, released from the control of Church and Capital, the masses and their minders went more or less berserk: in a country without rule of law, evolving “negotiated orders” could easily land all sorts of relatively unassuming people on the outs. We accept such a story about Mao’s “Cultural Revolution”; since the actual would be the possible, why not apply the same schema to the Soviet 30s-50s?”

Yes, a combination of bad upper management and the paranoid hysteria of the populace; people informing on others to make sure they weren’t informed on instead and just general paranoia thanks to many previous attacks by capitalist nations and plenty of propaganda along such lines probably with the goal of keeping a common enemy in sight to hold them together.

So, if you’re willing to grant this is not quite Diamat but a “pragmatic” reading of Marx, the way in which “truths of reason” can be accomodated within this theory is no great trick to pull off. They are simply the best ideology, things which nobody ever has any reason to doubt, or ever has good reasons to promulgate their contrapositives. If the most bloodthirsty Bolshevik ever were to tell some shrinking White divine “1+1=2″, what harm could possibly come from it? None at all. Similarly, principles that speak to the real needs of large masses of people orient action in good ways; even a Nietzschean superman would have to leave a lot of quasi-Golden rules in place, since his or her intellectual, physical, artistic etc. superiority would not guide mass action in good ways. In a sentence, “truths of fact” are truths of reason — and secrets other people can’t know are often secrets to their holders.

In traditional philosophy and science truth is most fundamental and simple concept. Main feature of scientific truth, is that it is verifiable, that is we always have chance to check truthfulness of empirical statement using correspondence with reality. We can judge about truthfulness of theoretical generalizations by what they logically imply and if they lead to true empirical statement.

Now Marx and his followers come and say us that it is too naive, that an utterance is a contribution to collective social action and so the political implications of it are essential and if political implications are wrong statement can’t be true. First, this remark may be relevant in those specific cases where statement has political implications, but many statements have no political implications. What statement “1+1=2” or “Snow is white” would imply? The existence of politically neutral statements is the first reason why as a general theory of truth, Marxist theory of truth is lame and utterly ridiculous. The main reason why it is lame is transpired by the following points of yours, and I am thankful to you for summarizing it this way:

Jeff: (1)In traditional Marxism and sociological theories following on from it, this coordination is the function of ideology, and what I am saying is that there is not another “alethic” dimension beyond communicative coordination — truth is good ideology, which coordinates people in constructive ways.

(2) But it is at least coherent to look at things this way, and to think that there are no “politically incorrect” truths, or politically correct falsehoods.

Sergey: So you see, you need to evoke idea of “good ideology” and “politically correct” to explain the concept of truth. If in our western world truth serve as a simple fundamental mechanism to differentiate right from wrong and good from bad, in your Marxist world it is ideology which work as a fundamental scale. The thing is true if it is in correspondence with your “good” ideology and not true otherwise.
But here is a simple question: how would you than check the goodness and badness of your ideology? When you reduce the concept of truth to ideology you can not claim that your ideology is good because it is true, you have to take your ideology as an axiom, as a doctrine which one must accept on faith. This makes Marxism just another religion.

And why we should think that Marxist ideology is good ideology? For me personally Marxism is the worst ideology I have ever seen, because it makes class straggle and hence class hatred fundamental philosophical cornerstone. It is bad because during its short history it brought death to more people than any bloody religion. More than 40 millions of Russians were killed by Stalin and about 100 million of Chinese were killed by Mao who were Marxists. Now imagine that someone would claim that a statement can be true if it demolishes Marxist ideology? Would not this be laughable? It is as laughable as the suggestion that statement can be true only if it is in correspondence with Marxist ideology.

I think Marxist theory of truth is one of the main reason why in rationally thinking word Marxism become synonymous with evil and of dictatorial governance. Look, here is how it work for the sake of dictators: If one do not have to respond to the facts and logical consistency and only my “good ideology” defines what is right and what is wrong, then those who are the keepers of the ideology (Party and its chairmen) hold the key to goodness and badness of every ideological statement and as a consequence to truth and falsehood of everything. So much for science, so much for objective Kantian morality. Chairmen of party holds the keys to fundamental scientific ideas and views on morality. So it was in Russia and China.