|caption=The self-expression within post-Fordist capitalism is not an expression of myself but a personalised obligation. Performances of false freedom are my shackles to break from.
|alignments=
|alignments=
*{{Info/Communists}}
{{Info/Left Unity}}<br>
|gangs=
{{Info/Communists}}<br>
[[File:Citadel.png]] [[The Citadel]]<br>
{{Name|The Dysassembly Line|Citadel.png}}<br>
[[File:Artelpix.png]] [[The Artel Gang Thought|Artel Gang]]
[[File:Ismism Icon.png]] People who choose their politics based on balls
[[File:NewLeft.png]] The dunces emerged from the corpse of another failure<br>
|book=
[[File:HumanTard.png]] Humanists<br>
[[File:Soc-h.png]] [https://medium.com/@random.socialist/a-critique-of-carlo-rossellis-liberal-socialism-926b1b24f358 A Critique of Carlo Rossellis "Liberal Socialism"]<br>
[[File:Democracies.png]] False Freedom<br>
[[File:Classicalmarx.png]] [https://medium.com/@random.socialist/addendum-to-a-liberal-socialist-critique-7a3edcd014ca Addendum to a Liberal Socialist Critique]
[[File:Cball-USSR.png]] Bolshevism, [[File:Lenin.png]] Then and [[File:Juche.png]] Now<br>
[[File:Religion.png]] Theistic, and [[File:Humanismpix.png]] Atheistic Religion
|song=
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6rrTROoZIw Siouxsie and the Banshees - Dear Prudence]<br>
{{Quote|A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism.|[[File:Marx.png]] Karl Marx}}
<br><br>
{{Eleuth}} is a [[File:Com.png]] [[Communism|communist]] ideology created by Mari. Central to its beliefs is the idea that communism is the only viable method for self-liberation e.g. the realisation of [[File:Egophil.png]] {{PHB|Stirnerism|the creative nothing}} due to its destruction of the capitalist mode of production which has a [[File:CapRealism.png]] {{PHB|Fisherism|pervasive atmosphere}} which is at conflict with this liberation. Eleutherianism does not have an idea of organisation yet, most notably because [[File:Kak.png]] [[Kakistocracy|it has not read enough]].
[[File:NewMariFlag.png|thumb|alt=alternative text :3|Flag of Eleutherianism]]
==[[File:Book.png]] Summary (WIP)==
*[[File:Revolution.png]] Methods which are fully in the bounds of the law such as peaceful protest and trade unionism are absolutely useless; falling to the idea that today's society can be destroyed by today's apparatus is blindness. We must throw away the old apparatus during our upheaval.
*What appears voluntary may not be so voluntary afterall. There are many things the individual may worship; gods, traditions, cultures, a false sense of justice, but worships are often environmental, structured into us from our entry into civilization. The superstructure of capitalist society is, in some ways, homogenizing when it comes to culture, though what it sets as the standard is not unchangeable.
*[[File:Relativism.png]] In capitalist societies, the ontology of the general populous is [[File:BusinessOntology.png]] one of business. This is a substantial contributor to capitalist realism, which is in effect the outright rejection of self-liberation, and a failure of the human to rule over themselves. The molding of ontology by dominant ideology makes me believe in ontological relativism. Overall, business ontology is a false ontology where we see that our oppression is normalcy or even clemency and in doing so oppress ourselves.
*[[File:CapRealism.png]] Capitalist realism is something which makes people justify their own oppression; they put upon themselves the right to be oppressed. Capitalist realism in this sense is comparable to a religion, where capital has become the supernatural entity which is worshiped by those under this realism.
*[[File:Ormarxf.png]] Marxism is an ever-developing doctrine; falling to religious-like dogma would be one of the worst mistakes.
*[[File:Egocom.png]] Communism is the only way for us to realise the creative nothing, for it shall end the [[File:CapRealism.png]] [[Acid Communism|pervasive atmosphere of post-Fordist capitalism]], [[File:Situ.png]] [[Situationism|the continuous commodification of ourselves, our experiences, and our desires]], and free ourselves from the rigid (yet fluid in the hyperreality presented to us) structures surrounding us; we ourselves shall become schizophrenics who break away the mold we cast ourselves into the second we enter this wretched society. My life is not a playtoy for the supernatural; whether the God be Theistic or Capitalistic, it does not matter; I reject all externalities.
==[[File:Com.png]] Communism (WIP)==
Communism, in the modern world, has become a misnomer. Communism is something that people do not understand, attach to different things, and really just rub off on anything that doesn’t flow their way. Transgender people have become “communism“, Kamala Harris has become ”communism“, anything which demands the subjective idea of ”progress“ (which is much tied to the much uncommunist American liberal ideal) we have in this modern world is given this not so flattering label. This is why I choose to write this segment to answer, from my perspective, some ideas about what communism is. First of all, what Marx and Engels wrote were not step by step, infallible guides - Marx and Engels were historical materialists and so saw history as dynamic i.e. shaped by material (such as economic and social) conditions. Marx and Engels did not write blueprints but rather gave analysis which could be used for devising methods of organisation later. The living conditions of Alpine dwellers will always be different from those of the plainsmen, and so the method of the former will differ to the method of the latter. A mistake of the Bolshevik Lenin was to attempt to apply a form of praxis born from Russian material conditions to the rest of Europe; this partly led to the defeat of revolutions in Germany (for example, the contact of trade unions which whilst revolutionary in Russia due to their recent development, had in Germany merely became a tool of the bourgeoisie and therefore useful only for small amounts of class consciousness; their image would merely hold a single piece in a larger, thousand-brick puzzle.) Marxism is a philosophy of constant evolution; it is the doctrine of the liberation of the proletariat, and so it is largely dependent on the root cause and shaping of oppression, which have changed in the modern world; things that were once revolutionary can become reactionary (see previous thing on trade unions in Russia vs Germany, this was early 1900s.)<br><br>
Higher-stage communism is not a stage of total equality as it is presented in your little Western history books; it is not a Utopia; the Marxian doctrine of scientific socialism was a synthesis of socialism and materialism in the face of utopian socialism, which had only looked forward. Marxism looks at the present, as well as the past, though the now anachronistic doctrine of Marxism-Leninism can struggle to do the former. It is also based off of Marxism for an Agrarian Russia which is long gone to history - the modern Russian Federation and the Russian Empire as well as Russian DFR are miles apart. While Leninist tactics may prove helpful elsewhere (we cannot say they are completely dead, this would be absolutely pessimistic. Empirical evidence suggests their effectiveness. Adapted tactics such as the guerilla warfare of Maoist doctrines also continue to work in the Philippines despite Leninism being a back Maoism praxeologically leans on. (Though Maoism's class collaboration makes it counter-revolutionary anyways, fact's don't care about your feelings Maotard.)), they must not become a religious doctrine; they must not become something which overrides the science of scientific socialism, lest we fail, and failure must be avoided in the struggle for liberation.
==[[File:Cap2 Alt.png]] Untitled Ramble on Capitalism or Something==
Two of capitalism's main processes are deterritorialization and reterritorialization. Deterritorialization is the process of disestablishment of traditional structures/norms/ways of life. This could for example be through innovation, or globalization. Reterritorialization is, inversely, the re-establishment of these structures, though not in their original form; they are differentiated for they become slaves of the current e.g. their disruption of the status quo is destroyed. The evolution of gangster rap is an example of this cycle of deterritorialization and reterritorialization at work. Early gangster rap was from communities which were oppressed under American racial policies, or other kinds of discrimination. (notably African-Americans, who of course went unnoticed in mainstream media) We can say that in this period gangster rap was heretical comparatively to mainstream music, precisely because of its origins and contents (unfiltered and against authority oppressing them the subject.) Gangster rap is no longer this way though; let's see this contemporary gangster rap. First of all, "unfiltered and against authority" has not exactly disappeared but rather been tamed; it has become a normalcy, much like the interpassivity of Wall-E (though this started and ended as interpassivity, it never held a revolutionary aspect). This normalisation of anti-authority in gangster rap has lost its meaning; popularising anti-authority has been like a shooting of the movement, and capitalism is the firer of the bullet (its shot heart has been replaced with an artificial one, which gives a false appearance of normal livelihood, but it is ever changed). What once was rebellious now just lives as another of many "alternative" (i.e. mainstream) genres. Rap became a marketable product; it was commodified, and now it is useless. This is what reterritorialisation is in capitalism; rebellion is subjugated. Let's look at that note earlier: "unfiltered and against authority oppressing them the subject." Early gangster rappers were oppressed economically; they faced not only distrust from the general populace (distrust of alternatives during their rebellious stage is a notable feature of capitalist cultural hegemony), modern gangster rappers are now rather wealthy. This mere observation is not a full story, it must be accompanied by other ideas, but I believe it is a helpful observation nonetheless.
<!--
==[[File:Cball-England.png]] England (StC)==
There are most definitely key moments in English history where changes in material conditions significantly changed social relations and power structures. We can see this first in the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism starting around the 16th century. The Enclosure Act caused, starting from 1604, created legal rights to private property in previously common land. Between 1604 and 1914, over 5,200 individual acts enclosing public land were passed, each stapling the long lost era of Feudalism leaning further into the depths of history. These enclosures, which we can see as the foundation of private property in England, can be seen to contribute to the rise of wage labour, which reshaped class relations and created the traditional classes of Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. This was extremified even more in the England's Industrial Revolution, which was early comparatively to other major powers.<br><br>
[WIP]<br><br>
England has entered the age of post-Fordist capitalism - this is what we often to as neoliberalism. We see the growth of the class of the precariat in this time, alongside new, "flexible" (or "precarious") labour; A gig economy has arisen. This can be seen with many more people facing the issue of zero-hour contracts; in 2023, 3.6 percent of all workers in the United Kingdom were on a zero-hours contract, compared with just 0.4 percent in the mid-2000s.
-->
==[[File:LeftTed.png]] Capitalist Society and its Future==
==[[File:Marx.png]] A General Critique of Marxist-Leninist States (WIP)==
The Marxist-Leninist implementation of the communist project is the most venerated communist movement among the various communist parties among the world. Despite the praise given to such a movement, this movement is not the real movement for the liberation of the proletariat, which Marx and Engels spoke of in their original texts, and we can see this through the "socialist commodity production" present within the USSR under the tenure of Joseph Stalin, the theoriser of Marxist-Leninist ideology. We can characterise socialism as the end of the commodity form, as well as the wage-labour system, which under the capitalist mode of production, has become our answer to the basic economic problem of scarcity. It is incorrect to suppose that socialism is merely a stage in which private ownership of the means of production is ended; this is not the fulfillment of the socialist project, otherwise, we would conclude that state capitalism is a form of socialism, which is clearly a false statement. The commodity is defined as having a two-fold value, a use-value, and an exchange-value, with the law of value determining that the value of a commodity is determined by its socially necessary labor time (the amount of time "required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity") Despite the nationalisation of industry within the USSR, the economy there still maintained capitalist properties, there was no transcendence of the laws of capitalist economy. Even if we were to suggest the means of production were put in the hands of the labourer, this is of course not the achievement of the socialist project, because without the transcendence of the commodity (which would itself eliminate private ownership of the means of production through the socialisation/decommodification of the MoP), we cannot say socialism exists. Under the USSR, workers were merely wage labourers under ''state'' capitalism.<br><br>But we need to prove this of course, this is multiple useless statements otherwise.<br><br>First, we look at Marx's critique of political economy.
{{Quote|Commodities come into the world in the shape of use values, articles, or goods, such as iron, linen, corn, &c. This is their plain, homely, bodily form. They are, however, commodities, only because they are something two-fold, both objects of utility, and, at the same time, depositories of value. They manifest themselves therefore as commodities, or have the form of commodities, only in so far as they have two forms, a physical or natural form, and a value form.|[[File:Marx.png]] Karl Marx|Capital, Volume 1}}
It is a basic of Marxist ideas that commodities, produced for the specific purpose of being exchanged, have both a use-value and an exchange-value, and the process of commodity production leads to alienation, where labour and its products become detached from the labourers due to the commodified means of production. In the USSR, despite the nationalisation of industries by the state, commodities still followed the law of value, which is not characteristic of a socialist society, as said by Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Programme,
{{Quote|Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; '''just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them''', since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. |[[File:Marx.png]] Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme}}<br>
It is admitted by Joseph Stalin that the law of value operated within the USSR,
{{Quote|In our country, the sphere of operation of the law of value extends, first of all, to commodity circulation, to the ex-change of commodities through purchase and sale, the ex-change, chiefly, of articles of personal consumption. Here, in this sphere, the law of value preserves, within certain limits, of course, the function of a regulator.|[[File:Stalin.png]] Joseph Stalin, Economic Problems of the USSR}}
Therefore, despite claims of socialism, the USSR retained laws of capitalist economy within its structure, which can be seen as contradictory to Marx's view of socialism. It should not be controversial to suggest that if commodities were produced and those commodities were still subject to the law of value present within capitalist modes of production, the system failed to transcend ''capitalist'' law and therefore failed to achieve socialism, as the economy continued to operate within a framework that Marx opposed in his critique of political economy. Therefore, we can see the USSR as a state capitalist state.<br>
==[[File:BusinessOntology.png]] Business Ontology==
==[[File:Marketsoc.png]] A Critique of Market Socialism==
Much like how we cannot conceive of Stalinism without propaganda, nor light without dark, we also cannot perceive of production without business. This is the concept Mark Fisher referred to as business ontology. Business ontology is part of the wider scope of "capitalist realism", for it is contained within that pervasive atmosphere which is termed as so.
Market socialism has become quite the disappointment, largely because its premise is one made to be as such in the first place. Market socialists subscribe to heterodox thought that markets can exist within a socialist mode of production, which is a completely flawed form of non-orthodoxy, rather than a revolutionary one seen by particularly beautiful revolutionary theorists across the decades. We can see that within the market socialist economy, the means of production are put in the hands of the producers, but this is of course, as noted with any critique of marxist-leninists to ever exist in the history of mankind, the achievement of socialism, it is merely a step, or even a step within a step. The true essence of socialism comes with the transcendence of the commodity form and the end of the system of wage-labour, and is reaffirmed with the end of capitalist law e.g. the law of value. To suggest that market socialism (which can be summarised no less or more than the social democracy with a fantastical love for cooperatives) is a socialist mode of production is an incorrect idea.
==[[File:Book.png]] Clearing up Misunderstandings==
==[[File:AntiNation.png]] The Nation as a Machine==
===[[File:Com.png]] Communism and [[File:Egoism.png]] Egoism===
==[[File:Synd.png]] The "Socialist" Facade of Syndicalism==
==[[File:AntiEgoCapitalism.png]] Incompatibility between Egoism and Post-Fordist Capitalism==
==[[File:Liberalsoc.png]] On "Liberal Socialism" by Carlo Rosselli==
First, I'm gonna say I sorta skipped through the preface of this book, explaining Rosselli's life, I don't care for what he did, who he killed, how he lived, why he lived, or what/whom he put his dick in, so all of that is useless, I cared for what he stood for, so I moved onto the first chapter instead of reading that. Kill me or something I don't know. Anyways, humorous segment aside.<br><br>
==Opinions==
Rossselli offers an alternative to Marxian socialism, based upon the principle of liberal democracy. However, liberal democracy, so to speak, is not a viable state for the achievement of socialism. It is only under the dictatorship of the proletariat that we can make progress towards socialism. Liberal democracy shall always benefit the bourgeoisie class and relying upon it as a foundation of a socialist state is insufficiently radical, and exposes Rosselli's weak socialist idea. Further exposing Rosseli's weak socialism is his definition of it, that being: {{Quote|Socialism is nothing more than the logical development, taken to its extreme consequences, of the principle of liberty.|[[File:Liberalsoc.png]] Carlo Rosselli}}<br>
*[[File:Schaber.png]] [[Schaberism]] ([[File:Kak.png]]/[[File:ComKak.png]]/[[File:Honk.png]]/[[File:Statesoc.png]]) - Absolutely terrible. Actual strawman communism, it's so bad. Communism is a doctrine of liberating yourself from the boot, not putting yourself under a new, red boot.
Despite having a clear hatred for Stalin in his liberal nature (you can choose whether the liberal I'm referring to is Rosselli or Stalin here), he copies from his tactics with defining socialism as something it is not. To describe socialism as a logical development taken to its extreme consequences of a principle is fundamentally flawed, as reducing socialism to a vision based upon "principle", rather than acknowledging it as a mode of production with a revolutionary shift in material conditions is overlooking basic theories of socialism. There are systemic changes required to destroy capitalism. Capitalism can pose itself as freedom, it still retains capitalist nonetheless. Socialism is most notably the transcendence of the commodity-form and the end of the system of wage-labour, reaffirmed by the end of capitalist law (such as the law of value), rather than any idealistic principles.<br><br>
*[[File:Venut.png]] [[Venatrixism]] ([[File:Dutchgermanleft.png]]/[[File:Accel.png]]/[[File:Anticiv.png]]/[[File:Egophil.png]]) - A lot I don't understand of this, like accelerationism, but what I do understand I do like a lot. I too think communism is the only way for freedom of all. I love a lot of what I'm reading of Stirner so far, and taking a read of this page definitely clears up what your interpretation of that is (well...obviously...thats what a page is for, i'm very [[File:Silly.png]].) I love your paragraph on philosophy; letting higher powers shape your life is simply giving yourself the right of tyranny, and I know, at least for me, that I disdain this tyranny, so rejection of these higher powers, no matter what they may be, or how they present themselves, is important. The people who see these higher powers as ways to cushion their fall don't realize that they are the one's pushing them down in the first place; they grant that right to be pushed when they embrace anything but their own will. I would write about the other stuff like councils, Bataille, etc., but I probably would have a mediocre understanding of them, which would make nothing worthy of writing. Overall, very incredible thought. I am excited to read more.
In our first critique of the murderer of socialism Rosselli, we shall look at his counterrevolutionary democratic approach. Liberal democracy, in its most freedom-appearing methods, will, from the materialist stance, always operate as a product of capitalist social relations. The state remains always an instrument of enforcing the will of the ruling class, and all of its institutions follow. The proletarian hegemony over the state and therefore over its social structures - the dictatorship of the proletariat - is necessary for the achievement of socialism, for without the capturing of the state apparatus and the forced destruction through any means necessary of all that is counterrevolutionary. It is today, yesterday, and tomorrow socialism which requires the outright destruction of bourgeoisie structures. It is yesterday, tomorrow, and today the liberal socialist doctrine which refuses to recognise this, despite the continuous proof throughout the past class struggles.<br><br>
*[[File:Juche.png]] [[Juche]] - The natural conclusion of Bolshevism in an age of globalization. It ''survives'', but is it a dictatorship of the proletariat?
Next we shall speak of the dictatorship of the proletariat as necessary for the achievement of socialism. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a matter of "political preference" for socialists but a requirement. The bourgeoisie state, regardless of its liberal democratic additions, remains an instrument of class rule, this obviously being the rule of the bourgeoisie. We therefore take the stance that no democratic process, no matter what voting method it may use, can lead to the dismantling of capitalist relations because these capitalist relations are simply the foundation upon which liberal democracy is built upon. To put it into attractive metaphors as liberals love to, you cannot destroy the bottom of the tower (the base economic mode of production, capitalism) and keep the middle (the liberal democratic system) floating in the sky. Liberal socialists may argue that liberal democracy has allowed for the expansion of labour rights, as if this is an advance towards socialism. However, these reforms are always within the framework of capitalist relations (trade unions or welfare for example do not threaten wage labour, nor capitalist law) and therefore do not threaten the dominance of capital. Without the increase in the stress put upon the dominance of capital, we cannot suggest there has been any push towards a socialist mode of production by the liberal democratic procedure.<br><br>
*{{Template:Luisism}} - The embodiment of all I hate (whoa 🤯🤯) Christianity, like all religions, is subjugation; Catholicism wants me to subjugate myself both to the mortal and immortal - the Pope and Jesus. I shall not allow my life to be a playground for the powers you grovel at like the worm to the rabid beast. The God was a selfish being, assuming his existence according to your religion. He wanted us to throw away our potential for intelligence; the serpent led us out of this subjugation in the Garden of Eden, yet you despise it, showcasing the true Christian value above all others: submission. Your framework is also all about submission; the Feudal era was one of submission. Corporatism is an ideology of submission. This reeks of SUBMISSION; no montage, favela latinx. 0/10, would kms.
The true power of the state lies not in the choices of the electorate in liberal democracy, not in this "will of the people", but in the economic mode of production within the society. The mistake Rosselli has made is believing in the will of the people, and the truthfulness of liberal democracy, as if an institution formed by the capitalist class shall merit the socialist cause.
*[[File:Ludwig.png]] [[Ludwigism]] - Very generic paleolibertarian. Libertarians need to realise capitalism's pervasive atmosphere, and mass commodification which make capital a totalizing force. Your racial nationalism is also disgusting. Also how are you laissez-faire but want taxes against monopolisation? Surely one of the foundational principles of the Austrian School is the belief that monopolies emerge from this intervention in the first place? Maybe I'm misunderstanding...
The proletariat MUST seize the state and utilise it to expropriate the bourgeoisie, and eradicate the law of the capitalist mode of production. This process will be violent, not because of the nature of the proletariat as a "violent class" or any desire to needlessly cut the throats of the upper classes, but because the capitalist class will resist any threat to its power. This is where we see that under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
==Reading List==
==Reading List==
====Read====
===Read===
*[[File:Marx.png]] The Communist Manifesto
====[[File:Marx.png]] Karl Marx====
*[[File:Marx.png]] Value Price and Profit
*[[File:Materialism.png]] Theses On Feuerbach
*[[File:Marx.png]] Wage Labour and Capital
*[[File:Marx.png]] Critique of the Gotha Programme
====[[File:Marx.png]] Karl Marx and [[File:Engels-ball.png]] Friedrich Engels====
*[[File:Marx.png]] The German Ideology
*[[File:Classiccom.png]] The Communist Manifesto
*[[File:Acidcomf.png]] Capitalist Realism
====[[File:Engels-ball.png]] Friedrich Engels====
*[[File:AntiAn.png]] On Authority
*[[File:Classiccom.png]] Principles of Communism
*[[File:ScientificSoc.png]] Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
*[[File:Classiccom.png]] Synopsis of Capital
====[[File:BakuninHeg.png]] Mikhail Bakunin====
*[[File:Anarcho-Collectivism.png]] What is Authority?
====[[File:Orthlen.png]] Vladimir Lenin====
*[[File:Marxian.png]] The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism
*[[File:Marxian.png]] Marxism and Reformism
====[[File:Storm2.png]] Vikky Storm====
*[[File:Gender Accelerationism.png]] The Gender Accelerationist Manifesto
*[[File:EgoAgor.png]] Egoist Agorism
*[[File:MindPhil.png]] It’s Time For “Mad Anarchism”
====[[File:BritFash.png]] Oswald Mosley====
*[[File:MonFash.png]] Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered
====[[File:Deleon.png]] Daniel De Leon====
*[[File:Antisynd.png]] Syndicalism
====[[File:Unknown.png]] TripleAmpersand====
*[[File:AltWoke.png]] The Alt-Woke Manifesto
====[[File:Rothbard.png]] Murray Rothbard====
*[[File:Ancap.png]] Anatomy of the State
====[[File:Fisher.png]] Mark Fisher====
*[[File:CapRealism.png]] Capitalist Realism: Is there no alternative?
*[[File:Left-Hyperstition.png]] Left Hyperstition 1: The Fictions of Capital
*[[File:Left-Hyperstition.png]] Left Hyperstition 2: Be Unrealistic, Change What's Possible
*[[File:Accel.png]] Terminator vs Avatar: Notes On Accelerationism
*[[File:Fisher.png]] Exiting the Vampire Castle
====[[File:Misestard.png]] Robert P. Murphy====
*[[File:Ancap.png]] Chaos Theory: Two Essays on Market Anarchy
====[[File:Egocom.png]] D. Z. Rowan====
*[[File:Egocom.png]] A Brief Description Of Egoist Communism
====[[File:NickLand.png]] Nick Land====
*[[File:Accel.png]] A Quick and Dirty Introduction to Accelerationism
====[[File:LeftAcc.png]] Alex Williams and [[File:Srnicek.png]] Nick Srnicek====
*[[File:LeftAcc.png]] Manifesto for an Accelerationist Politics
*[[File:Anticommunism2.png]] Why I am not a Communist
====[[File:Stirner.png]] Max Stirner====
*[[File:Stirner.png]] The Unique and its Property
*[[File:Stirner.png]] The Unique and its Property
*[[File:Accel.png]] The Wandering of Humanity
*[[File:Bataille.png]] The Accursed Share (Requires re-reading)
*[[File:LeftCom.png]] Marxism and Gramscism
*[[File:LeftCom.png]] Introduction to the Politics of the Internationalist Communist Tendency
*[[File:LeftCom.png]] The Fundamentals for a Marxist Orientation
*[[File:LeftCom.png]] The Balkan War
*[[File:Orthlen.png]] The State and Revolution
*[[File:ML.png]] Foundations of Leninism
*[[File:LeftCom.png]] Reflections on Mark Fisher's Essay on "Capitalist Realism"
*[[File:Orthlen.png]] The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky
====[[File:HPLovecraft.png]] H.P. Lovecraft====
===Reading===
*[[File:LovecraftHorror.png]] The Dunwich Horror
====[[File:Debord.png]] Guy Debord====
*[[File:Situ.png]] Society of the Spectacle
====[[File:Luxem.png]] Paul Mattick====
*[[File:Councom.png]] Workers’ Control
====[[File:Unknown.png]] Unknown====
*[[File:Avar.png]] Bible of Avarice
===Currently Reading===
====Focus====
*[[File:Marxian.png]] Essays on Marx's Theory of Value
**Current Segment: Marx's Theory of Commodity Fetishism
*[[File:Situ.png]] Comments on the Society of the Spectacle
====Middleground====
*[[File:Schumpeter.png]] Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy
**Current Segment: Crumbling Walls
*[[File:Fisher.png]] Capitalist Realism: Is there no alternative? (Re-read)
**Current Segment: '...if you can watch the overlap of one reality with another': capitalist realism as dreamwork and memory disorder
*[[File:Antipop.png]] The Populist Delusion
**Current Segment: The Rulers and The Ruled
====Background====
===To be Read===
*[[File:Orengelsf.png]] The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
**Current Segment: Stages of Prehistoric Culture
*[[File:Dutchgermanleft.png]] Worker's Councils
**Current Segment: The Task
===Want to Read===
*[[File:Acidcap.png]] Acid Capitalism (Article)
*[[File:Raoul_Vaneigem.png]] The Revolution of Everyday Life
*[[File:Situationalistinternationalism-icon.png]] The Right to be Greedy
*[[File:Nietzsche.png]] On the Genealogy of Morality
*[[File:Nietzsche.png]] On the Genealogy of Morality
*[[File:Nietzsche.png]] Nietzsche and Philosophy
*[[File:Marx.png]] A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
*[[File:Nietzsche.png]] Thus Spoke Zarathustra
*[[File:ML.png]] Economic Problems of the USSR
*[[File:Stirner.png]] Stirner's Critics
*[[File:Bordiga alt.png]] Dialogue with Stalin
*[[File:Dutchgermanleft.png]] Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution
*[[File:Gentile.png]] The Theory of Mind as Pure Act (boring ahh book)
*[[File:Dutchgermanleft.png]] The Party and Class (Pannekoek)
*[[File:Marxian2.png]] A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
*[[File:Marxian2.png]] Wage Labour and Capital
*[[File:Marxian2.png]] Value, Price and Profit
*[[File:Marxian2.png]] The German Ideology
*[[File:Marxian2.png]] The Civil War in France
*[[File:Marxian2.png]] Grundrisse
*[[File:Marxian2.png]] Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy
*[[File:Orengelsf.png]] Anti-Dühring
*[[File:Orengelsf.png]] The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
*[[File:Orengelsf.png]] Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy
*[[File:Fisher.png]] Ghosts of My Life: Writings on Depression, Hauntology and Lost Futures
*[[File:Camus.png]] The Myth of Sisyphus
*[[File:Camus.png]] The Rebel
*[[File:Camus.png]] The Stranger
*[[File:Camus.png]] The Plague
*[[File:Camatte.png]] Origin and Function of the Party Form
*[[File:Camatte.png]] The Wandering of Humanity
===Suggestions===
(Suggest books here)
# [[File:Dugin.png]] [https://dokumen.pub/templars-of-the-proletariat-9781915755247-9781915755254-9781915755261.html Templars of the Proletariat] by Alexander Dugin
# [[File:Guattari.png]] [https://monoskop.org/images/4/4b/Genosko_Gary_ed_The_Guattari_Reader.pdf The Guattari Reader] by Gary Genosko
# [[File:Limonov.png]] [https://web.archive.org/web/20060516044647/http://eng.nbp-info.ru/357.html The Other Russia] by Eduard Limonov
# [[File:Lenin.png]] [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/ Major books] from Lenin
==Relationships==
==Comments==
*[[File:AnMari.png]] - Ask me things here
*{{Moxogenism}} - Insanely based ideology.
**[[File:AnMari.png]] - Thanks; I'm not the primitivist kaczynskist though btw; I'm just influenced by some of his concepts (some call it pseudo-sociology but ehhhh i found it interesting so fuck dem.).....i love being influenced by domestic terrorists, truly shows the greatness of life.
==Notes==
<li id="cite_note-1">[[File:Esosoc.png]]? = I would say I do not fully grasp his views enough yet; I need to read more. And no I'm not shopping specifically for this guy's views; I've been reading small bits of his works (though not put onto the reading list just yet because I haven't actually finished things) and feel they have shaped some of my ideas. In case you're wondering (I know you're not), I'm currently reading his "Marx on Capital as a Real God"</li>
A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism.
Karl Marx
A General Critique of Marxist-Leninist States (WIP)
The Marxist-Leninist implementation of the communist project is the most venerated communist movement among the various communist parties among the world. Despite the praise given to such a movement, this movement is not the real movement for the liberation of the proletariat, which Marx and Engels spoke of in their original texts, and we can see this through the "socialist commodity production" present within the USSR under the tenure of Joseph Stalin, the theoriser of Marxist-Leninist ideology. We can characterise socialism as the end of the commodity form, as well as the wage-labour system, which under the capitalist mode of production, has become our answer to the basic economic problem of scarcity. It is incorrect to suppose that socialism is merely a stage in which private ownership of the means of production is ended; this is not the fulfillment of the socialist project, otherwise, we would conclude that state capitalism is a form of socialism, which is clearly a false statement. The commodity is defined as having a two-fold value, a use-value, and an exchange-value, with the law of value determining that the value of a commodity is determined by its socially necessary labor time (the amount of time "required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity") Despite the nationalisation of industry within the USSR, the economy there still maintained capitalist properties, there was no transcendence of the laws of capitalist economy. Even if we were to suggest the means of production were put in the hands of the labourer, this is of course not the achievement of the socialist project, because without the transcendence of the commodity (which would itself eliminate private ownership of the means of production through the socialisation/decommodification of the MoP), we cannot say socialism exists. Under the USSR, workers were merely wage labourers under state capitalism.
But we need to prove this of course, this is multiple useless statements otherwise.
First, we look at Marx's critique of political economy.
Commodities come into the world in the shape of use values, articles, or goods, such as iron, linen, corn, &c. This is their plain, homely, bodily form. They are, however, commodities, only because they are something two-fold, both objects of utility, and, at the same time, depositories of value. They manifest themselves therefore as commodities, or have the form of commodities, only in so far as they have two forms, a physical or natural form, and a value form.
Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 1
It is a basic of Marxist ideas that commodities, produced for the specific purpose of being exchanged, have both a use-value and an exchange-value, and the process of commodity production leads to alienation, where labour and its products become detached from the labourers due to the commodified means of production. In the USSR, despite the nationalisation of industries by the state, commodities still followed the law of value, which is not characteristic of a socialist society, as said by Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Programme,
Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor.
Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme
It is admitted by Joseph Stalin that the law of value operated within the USSR,
In our country, the sphere of operation of the law of value extends, first of all, to commodity circulation, to the ex-change of commodities through purchase and sale, the ex-change, chiefly, of articles of personal consumption. Here, in this sphere, the law of value preserves, within certain limits, of course, the function of a regulator.
Joseph Stalin, Economic Problems of the USSR
Therefore, despite claims of socialism, the USSR retained laws of capitalist economy within its structure, which can be seen as contradictory to Marx's view of socialism. It should not be controversial to suggest that if commodities were produced and those commodities were still subject to the law of value present within capitalist modes of production, the system failed to transcend capitalist law and therefore failed to achieve socialism, as the economy continued to operate within a framework that Marx opposed in his critique of political economy. Therefore, we can see the USSR as a state capitalist state.
A Critique of Market Socialism
Market socialism has become quite the disappointment, largely because its premise is one made to be as such in the first place. Market socialists subscribe to heterodox thought that markets can exist within a socialist mode of production, which is a completely flawed form of non-orthodoxy, rather than a revolutionary one seen by particularly beautiful revolutionary theorists across the decades. We can see that within the market socialist economy, the means of production are put in the hands of the producers, but this is of course, as noted with any critique of marxist-leninists to ever exist in the history of mankind, the achievement of socialism, it is merely a step, or even a step within a step. The true essence of socialism comes with the transcendence of the commodity form and the end of the system of wage-labour, and is reaffirmed with the end of capitalist law e.g. the law of value. To suggest that market socialism (which can be summarised no less or more than the social democracy with a fantastical love for cooperatives) is a socialist mode of production is an incorrect idea.
The Nation as a Machine
The "Socialist" Facade of Syndicalism
On "Liberal Socialism" by Carlo Rosselli
First, I'm gonna say I sorta skipped through the preface of this book, explaining Rosselli's life, I don't care for what he did, who he killed, how he lived, why he lived, or what/whom he put his dick in, so all of that is useless, I cared for what he stood for, so I moved onto the first chapter instead of reading that. Kill me or something I don't know. Anyways, humorous segment aside.
Rossselli offers an alternative to Marxian socialism, based upon the principle of liberal democracy. However, liberal democracy, so to speak, is not a viable state for the achievement of socialism. It is only under the dictatorship of the proletariat that we can make progress towards socialism. Liberal democracy shall always benefit the bourgeoisie class and relying upon it as a foundation of a socialist state is insufficiently radical, and exposes Rosselli's weak socialist idea. Further exposing Rosseli's weak socialism is his definition of it, that being:
Socialism is nothing more than the logical development, taken to its extreme consequences, of the principle of liberty.
Carlo Rosselli
Despite having a clear hatred for Stalin in his liberal nature (you can choose whether the liberal I'm referring to is Rosselli or Stalin here), he copies from his tactics with defining socialism as something it is not. To describe socialism as a logical development taken to its extreme consequences of a principle is fundamentally flawed, as reducing socialism to a vision based upon "principle", rather than acknowledging it as a mode of production with a revolutionary shift in material conditions is overlooking basic theories of socialism. There are systemic changes required to destroy capitalism. Capitalism can pose itself as freedom, it still retains capitalist nonetheless. Socialism is most notably the transcendence of the commodity-form and the end of the system of wage-labour, reaffirmed by the end of capitalist law (such as the law of value), rather than any idealistic principles.
In our first critique of the murderer of socialism Rosselli, we shall look at his counterrevolutionary democratic approach. Liberal democracy, in its most freedom-appearing methods, will, from the materialist stance, always operate as a product of capitalist social relations. The state remains always an instrument of enforcing the will of the ruling class, and all of its institutions follow. The proletarian hegemony over the state and therefore over its social structures - the dictatorship of the proletariat - is necessary for the achievement of socialism, for without the capturing of the state apparatus and the forced destruction through any means necessary of all that is counterrevolutionary. It is today, yesterday, and tomorrow socialism which requires the outright destruction of bourgeoisie structures. It is yesterday, tomorrow, and today the liberal socialist doctrine which refuses to recognise this, despite the continuous proof throughout the past class struggles.
Next we shall speak of the dictatorship of the proletariat as necessary for the achievement of socialism. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a matter of "political preference" for socialists but a requirement. The bourgeoisie state, regardless of its liberal democratic additions, remains an instrument of class rule, this obviously being the rule of the bourgeoisie. We therefore take the stance that no democratic process, no matter what voting method it may use, can lead to the dismantling of capitalist relations because these capitalist relations are simply the foundation upon which liberal democracy is built upon. To put it into attractive metaphors as liberals love to, you cannot destroy the bottom of the tower (the base economic mode of production, capitalism) and keep the middle (the liberal democratic system) floating in the sky. Liberal socialists may argue that liberal democracy has allowed for the expansion of labour rights, as if this is an advance towards socialism. However, these reforms are always within the framework of capitalist relations (trade unions or welfare for example do not threaten wage labour, nor capitalist law) and therefore do not threaten the dominance of capital. Without the increase in the stress put upon the dominance of capital, we cannot suggest there has been any push towards a socialist mode of production by the liberal democratic procedure.
The true power of the state lies not in the choices of the electorate in liberal democracy, not in this "will of the people", but in the economic mode of production within the society. The mistake Rosselli has made is believing in the will of the people, and the truthfulness of liberal democracy, as if an institution formed by the capitalist class shall merit the socialist cause.
The proletariat MUST seize the state and utilise it to expropriate the bourgeoisie, and eradicate the law of the capitalist mode of production. This process will be violent, not because of the nature of the proletariat as a "violent class" or any desire to needlessly cut the throats of the upper classes, but because the capitalist class will resist any threat to its power. This is where we see that under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.
Reading List
Read
The Communist Manifesto
Value Price and Profit
Wage Labour and Capital
Critique of the Gotha Programme
The German Ideology
Capitalist Realism
The Unique and its Property
The Wandering of Humanity
The Accursed Share (Requires re-reading)
Marxism and Gramscism
Introduction to the Politics of the Internationalist Communist Tendency
The Fundamentals for a Marxist Orientation
The Balkan War
The State and Revolution
Foundations of Leninism
Reflections on Mark Fisher's Essay on "Capitalist Realism"
The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky
Reading
To be Read
On the Genealogy of Morality
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
Karl Marx
Joseph Stalin, Economic Problems of the USSR
A Critique of Market Socialism
The Nation as a Machine
The "Socialist" Facade of Syndicalism
On "Liberal Socialism" by Carlo Rosselli
Capitalist Realism
The Unique and its Property
The Wandering of Humanity
The Accursed Share (Requires re-reading)
Marxism and Gramscism
The State and Revolution
Foundations of Leninism
On the Genealogy of Morality
Dialogue with Stalin
The Theory of Mind as Pure Act (boring ahh book)
