On Karl Marx’s Ideal of Man

The question of Marx's ideal of man is quite simple: the whole image he lays forth in his works is overly childish, voluntaristic and outright untenable.

Human knowledge has grown so immensely since the Antiquity, so that the very basic jobs require quite a significant learning period. One cannot simply become an engineer or an analyst, even with a background in the adjacent fields.


Some Notes on Methodology

My idea of justice is that it is a completely man-made concept, just as the concept of truth. This means that we live in an inherently unjust world, which we can (with more or less success) make more or less just, depending on our volition; however, no one can guarantee that our justice will be compatible with the laws of the world we live in.

We live in the world that is limiting the scope of our a priori knowledge. This, the concepts of both action and praxis are playing a very major role in how we think about the world.

This necessitates the consequentialist view on liberty, because moral absolutism is much more inertious and prone to throwing the good money after the bad, especially in the extremely volatile situations so frequent during the recent times.

So, while formulating the ideas of social theory, it is very important frame one's thinking in proper and precise terms. For my social theory to be consistent, I need to build it in a systemic fashion:

flowchart LR id01["Metaphysics"] --> id02["Philosophy"] id02 --> id03["Social Theory"]

This quite wide scope of enquiry is not an attempt at implementing a generalist approach. This is just a thorough approach to specialisation, which aims at resolving the several very important inconsistencies that plague the modern Humanities.

1. There should be a full glossary for the concepts and terms being in use, verifiable by means of content analysis and logical calculus;
2. All reasoning must be structured in a way that allows for complete linguistic explication;
3. A sub-set of the English language must be developed so that the descriptions of the factual data, as well as the theories present, may become easily analysable by (yet, we will need to use a definite and personalised styles for expressing the ideas and findings to the general audience);
4. The mathematical methods should be applied in a more deliberate fashion and framed more accurately that it is usually done in the modern Social science.

flowchart LR id00[(Terms DB)] id01[(Sub-Language DB)] id02[(Resulting Research)] id03[(Maths Methods)] id04[[Actual Thinking]] id00 --> id01 id01 --> id02 id03 --> id02 id04 <--> id00 id04 <--> id01 id04 <--> id03

This methodological skeleton requires further theoretical development and formal structuration. This way the polyphony of the sociological thought may be utilised in the most effective way for understanding the happenings of the human interaction.


The Repressive Normality

The mode of normality widespread in the ex-USSR societies is definitely repressive and dysfunctional.

Being a ‘normal’ person in Ruᛋᛋia, for example, means being a Nazi, or a Nazi collaborator, to believe in bullshit propaganda and be exploited by the insane mob, that treats the people under their control ass infinitely malleable and literally infinite mass.

Normalcy (or normality, if you want) is a statistical category, it cannot hold any value, since no meta-data can be valued outside of the value framework of the analyst.

Of course, any government facilitates the compliance and conformity among the population under its control. However, the Ruᛋᛋian situation is quite a unique one due to:

  • the lack of horizontal links within the society;
  • the habit of being governed by a hyper-centralised power;
  • the lack of introspection in relation to the everyday life and the long-term plans.

All these factors contributed to the production of a dysfunctional normativity: dysfunctional in terms of the personal well-being of each of the governed.


The Surprising Nature of the Conservative Role of the Left

The negative dialectics of the modern leftism makes it the most prominent conservative force of our age. It might seem strange or unusual at the first glance, but this is a direct consequence of commodification of the Left discourse and social activism in general. Since 1960s, we see that he participation in acts of civic disobedience and radical activism slowly become:

  • socially acceptable
  • de-criminalised
  • a legit method for the political action

People go to the activism expecting immediate results, so they have to bring up quite radical claims so to affect the situation in a more or less profound way.

The conservative side of this embedding of the far-left politics into the political sphere are quite surprising and obvious at the same time:

The obvious part is that radical Left call radical Right to life. It's not a ‘horse shoe theory’ it is a simple fact that as soon you introduce a radical position on one end of the spectrum, the disturbed people on the other will also radicalise to a similar extent.

The not so obvious part is that since being a leftist no longer means bearing a social stigma, the participation in the leftist actions has become a form of spectacle (as opposed to life-style), and seriously diluted the intellectual level of the average activist: after all, chanting slogans is much easier than reading a lot of complicated literature on the subject. Radicalism has become cheap and mostly non-demanding, and thus much easier to be taken beyond any limits.

This could not fail to lead to the emergence of a whole caste of narcissistic manipulators taking over the Left and reproducing the same reality under the new discourse (oftentimes unbeknownst to themselves).

In the days of yore, the social segregation was fuelled by the ideas of White supremacy and Black inferiority. But now we move to the same kind of segregation, that comes out of the attitudes of White guilt and Black victimhood. Of course, no one from the modern Left believes that the Black people are inferior to any other people. Yet, the results of their actions leave to segregation, where people are either coming together for a protection from the out-groups, or are separated institutionally with some pædogogic motive.


Progress with the ‘Human Action’

I have finally collected myself together and continued working hard on making my conspect of the ‘Human Action’ by Ludwig von Mises. [link] Chapter XVII is finally behind.

One of the best parts of the work – in addition to the purely praxeological consideration of the indirect exchange – is the logical, detailed and concrete explanation of the sources of the inflationist policies of the modern (XX and XXI centuries) governments.

This historical and sociological regression is very important, because it makes a lot of the current phenomena very clear: e.g. the role of credit expansion through the issuance of the fiduciary media as a tool of granting particular groups of people out of political convenience.

There is no need in a long search for an illustration to that thesis: Now in Ruᛋᛋia there are a lot of military members – basically all who are smart enough not to throw their money away on booze, meth and cheap AIDS-laden whores – who have been put to the favourable position in the economy. They are buying a lot of real goods (since it does not take a 130 IQ to understand the mechanics of inflation), so everyone else ‘enjoys’ serious price hikes on the housing, automobile-related markets and even on the market of food.


When the dust settles and Ruᛋᛋia loses, the military must pay the bulk of the reparations, because they were many times privileged by Khuilo's government through:

  • Inflationist policies
  • De-facto authorisation of any crime on the occupied terrtories
  • The social programs
  • Direct payments

I am I, not Anyone Else

One of the recent Meduza.io[RU] articles was about the discussion around the emigrées from Ruᛋᛋia. And an interesting sociological survey was attached too.

At the moment I completed it, about 27 per cent of the sample responded that they associate themselves with the ‘Ruᛋᛋians who have left Ruᛋᛋia’.This supports the old saying: you can get one from Ruᛋᛋia easily, but it is very difficult to get Ruᛋᛋia from one.

That is why I tend to avoid the Russian immigrants in Armenia. The problem is that the adequate people - in Ruᛋᛋia or outside of it - can leave normally and peacefully. But if someone is psychically Ruᛋᛋian, then that one will bring Ruᛋᛋia everywhere one goes.

It is indeed a bad habit — to identify oneself with the people you don't know or approve of, be it a nation, race, sex or something like that. It is even not an animalistic tendency: an average ape cares only about its own group members, and outsiders are often met with no love (or even killed on the spot).

Collectivism, more precisely, altruism is a thoroughly human kind of poison. Something like a memetic mind-parasite that makes people harm themselves to supposedly benefit some imaginary whole distributed who are able to institutionally link themselves to that imaginary sacrifice target.

So I honestly don't get why people flock into communities that, instead of adapting to the new reality, try to make a bubble, a miniaturised version of the place they have left. If you leave a bad spot on the map, leave it completely, do not put an idealised copy of it on your back and don't try to build a model of it somewhere else, you fools.

If someone calls me a Ruᛋᛋian, it does not make me a Ruᛋᛋian. If someone calls me a Japanese, it does not make a Japanese. If someone calls me a Jew, it does not make me a Jew.

As for me, I am I. Period. And I honestly recommend everyone to apply this approach. It does not make you lonely. It does not make you like your friends and family less. It just makes you more coherent, and less bound by tangible links to quite imaginary entities used to control you in someone else's interest.


A Curious Finding

While researching then materials for re-envigourating my censorship research, I found an interesting web site and - by extension - an interesting organisation.

Cognitive Security & Education Forum seems to have been active since 2019. At the moment I am going through their publications and papers to extract the useful information, and I already see a lot of insights relevant to the sociology of knowledge, memetics, and media research.

I encourage everyone who is interested on such topics to have a quick look on the web sites and the materials on it.


[Conspect] – Sociology and War: A Science Divided

This is my conspect. It is not a transcription (unless I make a quote). It is a summary of some material as I understood it. If you find any part of it interesting — get the source material and corroborate to be 100% sure.

YT: Sociology and War: A Science Divided [RU]

The period since the beginning of the Russian invasion into Ukraine has been marked by quick severing of the ties with ‘the west’ and thus by disintegration of the processes of modernisation of the social sicences in Russia.

It is no longer possible to continue importing the adequate science into Russia, building scientific schools, preparing articles for the top-notch sicentific magazines if one's country in waging a war and [forcibly] intercepts any cooperation with the very global scientific world, into which the scientists have been integrating: successfully and deeply.
Boris Grozovski

Russian academia follows Russian media in terms of being subject to state censorship and repressions. So, the theme of the talk is the strategies the Russian social scientists (might) use within and outside of Russia.

Question 1: Those Who Stayed. What Do They do? What Do They Have to Do?

Boris Grozovski :

flowchart LR id00{{"Main Strategies"}} id00 --> id01("Mimicry") id00 --> id02("An Ivory Tower")

Victor Wachstein :

  1. The situation with the universities is difficult but not catastrophic. Universities are not only importing science, so they are not destroyed completely.
  2. There has been no institutional collapse in social sciences, at least a collapse similar to one in totalitarian regimes of the XX centuries.
  3. Social scientists in Russia have gone non-public, but continue their work.

Boris Grozovski :

Though the social sciences have not collapsed, the institutional pressure on the scientists is increasing. Is it just inertia?

Victor Wachstein :

The pressure is not absolute: the censorship does not affect foreign language publications. Elimination of institutional autonomy does not imply elimination of the institutional sovereignty. Cf. the totalitarian regimes and the ‘underground science’ and the testimonies of Viktor Klemperer (LTI [Amazon]).

Boris Grozovski :

How actual is the experience of the scientific community of the late-USSR?

Victor Wachstein :

It is possible, but it is hard to tell to which degree it can and will be reproduced. This is not a mass strategy. In addition to that, Ivory Towers may be suddenly attacked.

Boris Grozovski :

What then is the gradient of the sociological research in Russia?

Victor Wachstein :

The question is incorrect, since it implies a historical analogy with the late USSR. Individual point of view: People tend to stick to their themes. Foreign language publications are the safety valve: they are not censored.

Question from a Chat: What are the Main Structural Biases of sociological studies under Dictatorships?

Victor Wachstein :

The current publicly available Russian quantitative research fundamentally untrustworthy. Pollstering and quantitative sociology are thwarted by the military censorship.

  • Questions Formulations
  • Usage of Adjusting Coefficients
  • The tendency of population to provide more expected answers under the military censorship first found by Hadley Cantril.

All these methodological factors allow for manipulation on a very large scale. So, even if the researchers are honest, the probability of their getting the real picture are fairly low. Add the political incentivisation: polls have become a tool of political technology and polemics. The ‘silent majority’ discourse looks constructed.

Question 2: Strategies of Those Who've Left

Boris Grozovski :

flowchart LR id00{{"Main Strategies"}} id00 --> id01("Integration into the New Country's Academia") id00 --> id02["Reproduction of Russian Projects and Institutions"]

Victor Wachstein :

The difference is rather individual vs. collective adaptation strategies. Thus, these strategies are not mutually exclusive in practice. Institutional strategies are, however, absent: no analogies to the Frankfurt School moving to America.

In the long term, the expat academic institutions fall on a spectrum between the Frankfurt School and the Russian Scientific Institute (Berlin):

  • The former was very well institutionally organised and fruitful for the social science. But the return to Germany was not very impressive. Their general approach was: ‘We preserve Germany in Exile’.

  • The latter was a politically charged and organised institution. Their general approach was: ‘We build the proper version of Russia’. It ended poorly through cooptation by Nazi authorities.

It is hard to tell which approach will prevail and to which degree of success.

Also on the impact of the Frankfurt School on the American Life - reference to and short summary of Exile and Emigration by Wolf Lepenies.

Question 3: The Situation of the Russian-International Split

Boris Grozovski :

In current situation, those who work in the Social Sciences in Russia are nudged to servicing the government. Do they have common themes for speaking with those who left or specialised on international publishing?

Victor Wachstein :

Political and Academical perception of the changes caused by war is very divergent. The public sphere went into the state of ‘bellum omnium contra omnes’, while the academic world showed some institutional cohesion through evacuation and helping with relocation.