No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
FORGIVE ME BORKER :________((((((((((((((((((((((( | FORGIVE ME BORKER :________((((((((((((((((((((((( | ||
*{{NBorker}} Nrver!!!! | *{{NBorker}} Nrver!!!! | ||
**[[File:Beste.png]] - What happened?!?!?!?!?!?!? | |||
[[File:GlorCommunism.png]][[Glorified Communism]] is the "ideology" of E Coli/Cholera Camel. It unironically believes in esoteric socialism. Art by {{Cyberdelic Egoism}}. | [[File:GlorCommunism.png]][[Glorified Communism]] is the "ideology" of E Coli/Cholera Camel. It unironically believes in esoteric socialism. Art by {{Cyberdelic Egoism}}. | ||
{{Ideology | {{Ideology | ||
Revision as of 11:55, 5 October 2023
 |
Self Insert "People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism This page is meant to represent Cholera Camel's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission. |
FORGIVE ME BORKER :________(((((((((((((((((((((((
- Borker Nrver!!!!
- What happened?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Glorified Communism is the "ideology" of E Coli/Cholera Camel. It unironically believes in esoteric socialism. Art by Template:Cyberdelic Egoism.
Philosophical and Political Views
Primary Influences:
Max Stirner
Karl Marx- File:Nietzsche-icon.png Friedrich Nietzsche
Georges Sorel
Georges Bataille
Amadeo Bordiga
Antonin Artaud
- File:BetterMayakovsky.png Vladimir Mayakovsky
Alexander Bogdanov and Anatoly Lunacharsky
Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari
Alfredo Bonnano
Jacques Derrida
Sadie Plant
Theorie Communiste
Andrew Culp
Ian Wright
Political-Philosophical Views
Postmodernism
Post-Structuralism
- File:SoConstruc.png Social Constructionism
Materialism
Nietzscheanism- Stirnerism
- Dark Deleuzianism
Vague, Illiterate Accelerationism
Postgenderism
Libertarian Marxism
Post-Civilizationalism(I hated the zines, but they proposed somewhat interesting ideas)
Impossibilism- Esoteric Socialism
Praxis
Insurrection
Illegalism- Propagandizing the Myth
- Strikes without Unions
Technology
Biomechanicism
Bio-Transhumanism- Cyberfeminism
Biological Anarchy
Aesthetics
- Surrealism(Look at Wladislaw Beksinski's Dystopian Surrealism)
- Breakcore
- Biomechanicism(H.R Giger, White Phyrexia from MTG, Warframe)
Cosmic Horror
Aims
Realized Solar Economy- File:EmanAris.png Universal Aristocracy
Theory I've Read
Armed Joy, Alfredo Bonnano
Marx and Engels Non-Critique of Stirner, Alfredo Bonnano
The Coming Insurrection, Invisible Committee
Spread Anarchy, Make Communism, Invisible Committee
The Right To Be Greedy, For Ourselves
File:Nietzsche-icon.pngThus Spoke Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzsche
The Futurist Manifesto, Fillipo Marinetti
Existentialism Is A Humanism, Jean Paul Sartre
How To Philosophize With A Hammer And Sickle, Jonas Ceika
File:AcidCom.pngAcid Communism, Mark Fisher
File:AcidCom.pngCapitalist Realism, Mark Fisher
File:Ego.pngThe Unique And Its Property, Max Stirner
Hello From The Wired, Nyx Land
Towards The Creative Nothing, Renzo Novatore
Post-Civ! A Brief Philosophical and Political Introduction to the Concept of Post-civilization, Strangers in a Tangled Wilderness
Post-Civ! A Deeper Exploration, Strangers in a Tangled Wilderness
The Limit of The Useful, Georges Bataille
The Accursed Share Volume I, Georges Bataille
This is Not a Program, Tiqqun
Accelerationism And The Need for Speed, Andrew Culp
Dark Deleuze, Andrew Culp
The Communist Manifesto, Marx
Critique of The Gotha Programme
Portions of Das Kapital
Reflections on Violence, Georges Sorel
Opium Traffic, Antonin Artaud
The Theatre and Its Double, Antonin Artaud
Futurism And Anarchy, Renzo Provinciali
Dialogue with Stalin, Amadeo Bordiga
File:EmanAris.pngThe Post-Right Manifesto, Ebeggin
Reading:
Zeros and Ones, Sadie Plant(halfway through!)
Fanged Noumena, Nick Land
Spectres of Marx, Jacques Derrida
Twilight Of The Idols, Nietzsche
The Accursed Share, Volume II
Endnotes 1
Plant to Read(In no particular order)
Capitalism And Schizophrenia, Deleuze and Guattari
File:PostCraft.png The Global Genome, Eugene Thacker
File:PostCraft.png Infinite Resignation, Eugene Thacker
File:Nietzsche-icon.pngBeyond Good And Evil, Nietzsche
Endnotes
Visions of Excess, Georges Bataille
The Accursed Share, Volumes II and III
File:Infect.pngThe Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins
Statements.
- Morality is farcical and restrictive. There is no basis of morality beyond piety.
- The Human is a social construction.
- Gender is the cultural manifestation of the Division of Reproductive Labor,
- Sex is the Gendering of Body Parts.
- Theorie Communiste's concept of Communization as the withdrawal of the worker from the Proletariat, the immediate socialization of property, and the complete rejection of state authority is correct.
- The DoTP no longer operates in the post-industrial world, while it may be viable in the third world.
- Radicalization is a positive regardless of its specifics.
- Political violence is always a positive.
- Crime is generally a positive.
- Terrorism and Crime should be used as propaganda of the deed in order to draw individuals to Communization.
- Nietzsche's concepts of Apollonian and Dionysian illustrate the conflict between Idealism and Materialism, the State and the Individual, the Past and the Future, Growth and Expenditure, and many other dichotomies.
- Bataille's Solar Economy is correct.
- The accursed share cannot be properly expended in a non-communist system, as the required excess of energy would be very small in any system without communistic relations. Additionally, in communism, work only exists to enable expenditure, while in capitalism, work only exists to enable growth.
- Luxemburg was correct on the National Question.
- Capital is a system of in which as much expenditure as possible is subordinated to the process of growth. Glorious Expenditure is limited as much as possible through the abolition of limits on growth. The limits of capital's growth are so astronomical that waiting to reach them would be resignation. Thus, we must establish Communism in order to facilitate the triumph of useless expenditure over growth.
- The Biological Abolition of sexual difference is the logical conclusion of feminism.
- Biotechnology is the only solution to environmental issues. Plastivores, replacement of inorganic materials with biological alternatives, de-extinction propelled rewilding of extinct organisms, and creating synthetic organisms to fill lost niches will solve the majority of biological issues.
- The distinction between the Biosphere and the Technosphere is largely superficial, and the illusory barriers between the two will ideally and most likely dissipate in the near future.
- Transgender = Posthuman
Philosophy
Note: When I say a myth is realized, I more so mean an approximation is created. The actions inspired by the Myth are more important than its realization. Essays should be read in order to understand my thought's development and later elaborations and disownings.
Solar Glory
Note: Georges Bataille viewed glory as the paradoxical joy experienced from useless expenditure and the subsequent satisfaction of desire. The amount of energy required to live is always less than the amount of energy a human appropriates. Therefore, this 'accursed' share which cannot be spent on the accumulation of more energy, on growth, must be disposed of in a non-productive manner. Any intentional expenditure will result in the satisfaction of desire.
The abolition of the commodity form is the intention of the vast majority of self-identified communists. I agree with this point. Where I and many communists disagree is on the topic of use-value. I support the abolition of both exchange, but oppose the glorification(in a non-Bataillean sense) of use-value.
Use-Value is merely a means to an end. The judgement of a product based upon its usefulness is valuable only to the meager. Let us use a pen as an example: To the capitalist, a pen is only useful insofar as its sale can generate profit. To the Marxist, a pen is only useful insofar as it can be used to generate text. To the Bataillean a pen is only as useful as it's potential to be a conduit for expended energy and the production of art, it's potential for glory. Or let us utilize an axe as an example: To the Marxist, it's value is proportional to the labor it enables. To the Bataillean, it's only worth is it's ability to increase the quantity they can expend, to the glory it enables.
Many Marxists oppose the commodity because it creates false needs and useless products. On this, I disagree. Useless products are the objective of both capitalism and communism, but their nature differs between the two. The useless is the goal of all production, but de-commodified useless products are the goal of communistic production. Surplus energy should be utilized to produce the useful, the useful should be utilized to produce the useless, and the useless should be spent and used frivolously. The useless enables the expenditure of the Accursed Share.
Now we come to the question of how the Accursed Share should be spent. It should be spent in the most glorious ways possible. Through violence, sex, art, and thought. In accordance with Bataille's observations about festivals, I actually think one ideal way to spend the Accursed Share would be the following; For a period, we should labor. We should build and reap and sow and create. We should only perform as much labor and the exact types labor needed to enable as much glorious expenditure as possible. Essentially, a union of egoists should be established to enable this glorious expenditure, and consequentially the satisfaction of desire.
Objective meaning is dead, and we are left with the question; what is the point of any of this? If every grand narrative has collapsed, if truth never existed in the first place, then meaning as an objective concept is null.
I align with Jean Paul Sartre's perspective on this issue. There is, has never been and will never be any meaning external to the lived subjectivity, the qualia perceived by the Unique. The Unique creates meaning for itself through action, through decision and choice. My 'meaning' is the events which are caused by my actions. I determine what meaning I wish to pursue through which actions I view as conductive to achieving self-actualization, the realization of my desires and the expense of my excess towards glorious ends, ends which bring me experience and (sometimes) pleasure.
The Unique is condemned to conflict between it and the phantasms which struggle to control it. The Creative Nothing that is the Unique has no identity of its own, it simply perceives, and vainly attempts to construct self-identity out of that which it perceives. From the moment it begins experiencing, phantasms surround it and struggle to infect it and imprint themselves upon to it. These phantasms essentially graft themselves onto the Unique and unconsciously structure its interpretation of its Lived Subjectivity. The Unique's desire to exercise its will and to influence its environment is obfuscated by the expectations, roles and behaviors which are forced upon it. 'Identity', as we understand it, is merely a collection of foreign phantasms that have successfully embedded themselves into the Unique.
In our society, our self-actualization is limited and demarcated by our 'identity', whether this identity chosen or engendered. Thus, our wants which are congruent with the wants integral to our identity are deemed valid, while those which run parallel to it are repressed, alienated and hidden. This process creates inevitable struggle between our conscious, embraced desires and the desires which are understood as alien to ourselves. These 'appropriate' desires are viewed as the very essence of our being, while any others are dirty, something to be hidden away and shamed. A continuous dialectical conflict is created between our identity and our self.
Identity is a cage for the self, and its destruction is my liberation. The Nietzschean Overman is created through the bypassing of identity. My meaning is this; Firstly, the destruction of myself as others have demarcated, and the creation of myself as I authentically am. Secondly, the modification of material conditions to accommodate this objective. Third, the radical actualization of my authentic desires rather than the foreign needs imposed upon me.
Against the TAZ
The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Hakim Bey's groundbreaking theory which consists of the following: 1. Create a small plane of insurrection 2. Be free for a couple hours to a week at max 3. Pack up and leave. Must I elaborate on the pathetic nature, the mediocrity of such an approach to insurrection? This is not escape. This is escapism.
The TAZ is a temporary locality somewhat liberated from Capital's control. It is the withdrawal from society as opposed to an affront against it. Its allure is visible. Bey speaks so often of terrorism, but never explains how the TAZ enables it. A transparent, miniscule insurrection draws no attention from the powers that be. Bey himself even says to "vanish, leaving behind it an empty husk" once the forces of Capital arrive. Pathetic. Some would say that the TAZ is more conductive to an individuals satisfaction than pursuing lofty, 'utopian' goals of wide-scale change. To this, I say: How could the individual be free through short bursts of freedom? Is not true liberation attained through the destruction of what is? The modification of the material conditions to enable freedom, to enable the individual to spend their energy, their power however they wish rather than being limited to the small array of activities the TAZ offers that, while enjoyable, are ultimately inconsequential? It seems so. The TAZ is a scab upon empires back, while what I propose is an infection.
Let us look to Tiqqun for an alternative, for a truly radical method of insurrection. We must go on the attack. The black blocs offer us a vision of what a plane of opacity, of consistency looks like. A externally opaque, violent, and radical collective in which the self and the group become one, a Dionysian revolt against what-is. Such acts function as affective propaganda for the movement, far more than the nigh-invisible pocket dimension Bey wishes to create. We do not want sunny bursts of fun, connectivity and joy, but violent and destructive acts of terror and liberation. The streets will burn with the fires of hateful orgasm.
A dynamic, guerilla approach fares much better than a meta-pacifistic 'ontological anarchy'. Nerve-like roots will grow beneath the skin of Empire, burning everything they touch. Build radical alternatives not in sores, but in cysts, ready to pop. Create so many war machines that Capital cannot possibly appropriate them all at once. Transgress, destroy, rebuild, become, change, shoot, steal, burn. Terror shall become and art and art shall function as terror. Upset the foundations of what is, unroot everyone you can from the delirium of corporate wirespace. Smash their consumerist daze and drag them into the dance, kicking and screaming if you must. Never lose speed, never stop fighting, have no demands, make no compromise, engage in no dialogue, and aim for the cops head.
What Is Communization?
Communization Theory is the most vibrant strand of the ultra-left today, but it is ill-defined and frequently misunderstood. I take the position of Theorie Communiste: Communization is the proletariat's self-negation.
In the First World, the working class identity which once thrived around the manufacturing industry is now withering. With it goes the chance of building a functioning working class movement built around a common, working class identity. The Proletariat is defined by its oppression. Its very existence is reduced to 'those exploited by the bourgeoisie'. The Proletariat is now left with the choice of either submission or rebellion. In this scenario, rebellion consists of escape, but not escapism, as I described earlier. It is an offensive process of insurrection in which the authority of Capital and the State are not just ignored, but actively dissolved, at least on a local scale. The abolition of the conditions which create the Proletariat are its self-dissolution. To become something dynamic, something liberating, the Proletariat must attack the structures and systems which produce it. There should be no demands, no conditions for Capital to meet. There should only be cold silence and hot lead.
To the average Marxist, these proposals are nothing short of heresy. But they must understand that the Proletarian movement can no longer operate in a society where the Proletariat has no class-consciousness, and can have no class-consciousness. Perhaps in the East a Dictatorship of The Proletariat could be established, and this is not something I would oppose(though I would prefer for Communization there as well). Regardless, it must be understood that as Capitalism's systems become so integrated into the lives of the Western Proletariat that Capitalist Realism is unavoidable, Class-Consciousness as described by Lukacs becomes impossible. The majority of production is now performed in the Third World, while the Western Proletariat becomes increasingly differentiated, specialized and atomized by a post-industrial economy.
Difference, originally proposed as a War-Machine, becomes integrated into Capital in a perverted form. A vast set of identities are created and then sold to individuals based upon predetermined traits, and market mechanisms essentially crystallize these identities into products, so that difference as it was once conceived becomes yet another form of control. Proletarian politics are politics of difference, of radical uniqueness and alternatives to what is(or once was). Communizing politics shall be politics of destruction. Identity is a chain, definition a straightjacket. The multiplication of identities makes them no less suffocating. Working Class identity was only useful as much as it enabled its own abolition on communistic terms(which never happened), and now that it has dissipated in the interest of capital we should stop trying to use it as a war machine. Instead, we should embrace the nothingness that communism offers, and attempt to expand it.
While the Proletariat's identity has disappeared, it's existence as a class remains. And so we come to a practical issue: what material changes are to be made to simulate and construct communism? Insurrection is the answer. A classless mass exists when zones of opacity are created, when actions so radical are taken that their very existence threatens the powers that be. In moments like this, there is a temporary modification of social relations which simulates communistic ones. However, a zone of opacity mustn't be a replication of the TAZ, no. It must be an offensive and semi-permanent construction, for communization is the abolition of class, which is performed through the socialization of property and the distribution of products by those who produce. Negate, spread, destroy, infect, communize!
Myths, God-Building and Hyperstition
A collection of ideas coalesced in early 20th century heterodox Marxists such as Lunacharsky and Sorel, thoughts about believing in what the orthodox would call lies, but they knew were symbols. Sorel proposed the Myth, a phenomenon in which revolutionary movements' belief in their own inevitable victory actually enabled that victory. Lunacharsky and Bogdanov proposed god-building, a form of secular worship directed towards revering man, progress and labor. In order to excavate the value of these concepts, we must shave off their respectively syndicalist and humanist trimmings, revealing the truths held within.
Sorel's myth revolved around the way in which constructing a semi-real narrative in fact realizes that narrative. We shall look to the Russian Revolution to understand how this functions in reality. The Bolsheviks success was unprecedented. While this success can be partially chalked up to the disunity of the Whites and the possession of industrial centers, the ideological aspect of their victory cannot be understated. The Bolshevik leadership propagandized and promoted millenarian conceptions, that they were the vanguard to liberate the working class, that communism was near, that world revolution was coming, that capitalism cannot stand under the weight of its own contradictions, that even if they didn't have a material advantage, the mechanics of capitalism would self destruct the system and bring them to power anyways. This is what Sorel means when he speaks of the myth.
While the Russian Revolution serves as a good outline, it must be understood that Sorel believed the general strike to be the perfect proletarian myth. While striking is a fair tactic, in the vast majority of cases it is done for social-democratic and collaborationist reasons, a sort of mock performance to show that it is in Capital's interest to grant temporary concessions. The only General Strike to have occurred on a mass scale was probably the events of May '68, also known as the death knell of the new left. The conduct of the Unions during this period of revolutionary fervor demonstrated the unreliability of the corporatist class-traitors, or to use a Leninist term the Labor Aristocracy.
The Vperedist's God-Building, unlike the Sorelian Myth, never had much of a literary corpus to back it up, at least not any that has been translated into English or released internationally. As far as I understand, they believed that a meta-religion in which the values of Proletkult are revered with a religious fervor. They believed that faith in these values would create a sort of belt to fasten the people living under socialism together, and to instill a faith in this system beyond what was envisioned by the cold economism predominant at the time. While this outlook would certainly be beneficial to any communistic orientation, it has humanist platitudes which hamper its effectiveness. It integrates a man-nature dichotomy, worshipping the conquest of the natural world under man's steel boot.
The CCRU coined Hyperstition, a term describing ideas that by their very nature make themselves true. The Myth is one of these ideas. Myths are a sort of memetic infection, hopping from individual to individual and becoming truths once they have spread enough. What if we were to make speed, glory and destruction a god, a myth? What if through our actions, we propagandized this God, if our artists become its missionaries and our warriors its crusaders? A viral religion of sorts.
As I expounded in 'Against the TAZ' and 'What is Communization?', Communization should function as an infection upon Empire. We should attempt to create a faith of speed, change, violence, art, sex and freedom. We shall sacrifice the representatives of Capital upon the altars of the Urban streets, spill the blood of the reactionary in his own church, for our virus is freedom, and our faith is the death of the world. Faster, faster we shall go, dragging capital ever further into apocalypse. Sometimes to free a mind, you have to crack a skull. Our myth is insurrection and collapse. Our god is speed, our devil, Capital. Terror will be our eucharist, and the dilapidated streets our hallowed cathedrals. Suburbia is the hell we fear, and with its destruction comes our liberation. Onwards, faster, for we live within the apocalypse! Faith in speed and blood against the conformist devils! Speed be my god!
The Case for 
The Orthodoxy
and 
The Ultra-Left
This is likely to be my hottest take, considering the... less than positive opinions my compatriots often have towards ultra-leftists and orthodox Marxists. On a philosophical level, I oppose the stances of these systems, but on a practical level, I view them as a positive, for I believe they are the only statist systems that can genuinely semi-represent the interests of its constituents.
To start, let us discuss the issue of Lenin. Oh Vladimir, how many times will your corpse be raped? The Russian Revolution was a failure, and Leninism is a bureaucratic, inefficient, and collectivist system. But it is not capitalist. Lenin authentically established workers soviets, waged war upon the bourgeoisie and the remnants of feudalism, and propelled Russia towards higher phase communism. But his violation of the individual is highly undesirable, and his suppression of Vpered was driven by a sense of political paranoia which would only grow in his successors. Alas, such a systems positives outweigh its negatives. So long as I have a say in the soviet, I receive my basic needs, and I am allowed to tread as I please, I see no reason to revolt.
While on the issue of the Russians, I shall evaluate the legitimate Russian Ultra-Left: Vpered. The Vperedists collectivist leanings are more Dionysian than anything, supporting the individual and the collectives synthesis rather than one's triumph over the other. As seen in the above essay, Proletkult and God-Building are quite influential to me, and I think their construction of a socialist futurism is authentic. Additionally, their technocratic beliefs are more about the application of the scientific method to political issues and economic planning than the rule of experts, something I see as unproblematic. God-Building is genuinely one of the only ways to build faith in communism, and the Vperedists realized this early on.
Rosa Luxemberg is arguably one of the most misinterpreted figures in communist history, from her claiming by both councilists and Marxist-Leninists, to her interpretation as any more libertarian than her contemporaries. Despite this, the attempted German Revolutions were most certainly positive, as well as their central European counterparts. Additionally, Luxemburg was correct about national-nihilism. Luxemburg and her compatriots interpretation of Marx was most definitely accurate, especially compared to the emerging authoritarian and bureaucratic strands of Marxian thought developing at the time. The Spartakists were one of the most progressive strands of early 20th century Marxist thought, and their dismissal as 'statist bureaucrats' by anarchists is disappointing.
I needn't elaborate on the Bordigite tendency, as it is comparable to the benefits and pitfalls of Leninism. Councilism is the strand of Ultra-Leftism that is the most libertarian and conductive to individual interests, barely even needing the communistic social contract to back it up. Additionally, the contemporary Libertarian Marxists, Camattists, and the minarchistic strands of Communization Theory are excellent comrades.
Now to explain the reason I'm willing to tolerate a state at all, and it is, unfortunately, rather Hobbesian. I am willing to concede a portion of my freedom in return for a communistic system of social relations. I still get what I need, I can still produce art and philosophy, I still have a say on some level, and I can tread as I please for the most part. While I heavily, heavily prefer stateless anarchy, in the unlikely event a system like this emerged, I would not oppose it. It is on the same principle that I do not oppose libertarian municipalism and classical anarchism. These people are not my enemies, merely misled comrades, and who am I to oppose the establishment of communism, albeit in a different manner than I advocate? These reasons are why I support people like Jefbol, ThisUser, and CynicalLia. They are far from ideological matches, but they are fighting for causes I will always supports.
Against the Meta-Statist Aristocracy
The Myth of Collapse: Observations at The End of The World
Sequel to "Myths, God-Building and Hyperstition"
Among my peers is a pervasive notion of 'collapse'. That the current state of affairs is precariously balanced and that its' collapse will create a veritable ideological playground in which their ideas can be put to the test. I myself have frequently been guilty of indulging in this millenarian fantasy, but nobody has yet analyzed it as a social phenomenon.
Whether Neoreactionary, Communist or Anarchist, most contemporary theorists I associate with deem collapse an inevitability rather than a possibility. They construct their entire philosophies around collapse, and will do just about anything to speed it up. But what if collapse is more a myth than an inevitability? Collapse is another memetic parasite which will do anything to bring itself about. It makes itself as attractive as possible to as many as possible, and thus ensures its transmission. It unites its hosts based upon a common goal, and streamlines their former tactics to ensure the success of this goal, for a meme's realization is also its greatest viral boom.
Initially I assumed the demystification of a myth would damage its optics and success, but I have re-evaluated the collapse meme's nature and determined it strong enough to be analyzed without being destroyed in the process, for unlike many myths, collapse is a legitimate possibility. We are not attempting to bring about collapse, but rather increase the probability of its occurrence. To reach the root of this meme's spread and success, we must look to what makes it so attractive: Its pan-ideological significance.
Collapse, whether viewed through an insurrectionary or accelerationist lens, is the death of all current institutions and the reign of anarchy(not anarchism) on a global scale. Most assume it will cause mass death, destruction and loss of faith in whatever is left of the old. It is not a false ideal, but a logical conclusion to the farcical second cold war and the increasing radicalization across all national lines. This concept is incredibly attractive to followers of NRx, Communizers, and the Post-Left alike, as all of them adore any chance to give their strange, outlandish(xenospheric?) ideas an environment to thrive in. Even apolitical doomers and ignorant alt-lite commentators view societal collapse as a when, rather than an if. So then, why try to debunk something that will make itself true? I see no reason.
Collapse is the epitome of hatred for the old. The world spasms continuously, struggling to give birth to a new world and new possibilities, a cyst full of futuristic pus rather than a golden child prepares to burst forth from its womb. Consumerism manufactures unconscious hatred. You can see it in the shootings, in the depression rates, the riots, the tension, the desperation to hold onto something, to cling tightly to a narrative, a savior, even if it is a terrible, terrible savior. And it is in this apocalyptic haze that the myth of collapse was conceived. While it has been kicking at the placental wall since the dawn of the atomic bomb, it has never been so close to being born. It is the phoenix of liberation, destruction and cleansing fire. Do you feel it? That burning steel hook, pulling your brain out of your fucking skull? That is the crackling of the cathedral's tinder wood. The Old World died, and the New World was stillborn. The time of monsters never ended, but the maggots which infest the New World's corpse may yet kill monsters too. And with strange eons, even death may die.
A Critical Commentary on "Post-Contrarian Anarchy"
177.45th Critique of Reform
Well, time to continue in the great Marxist tradition of attacking reformists. Social peace is a Sorelian concept describing a state in which the Bourgeois and the Proletariat live in harmony for the benefit of the Bourgeoisie only. Once the Bourgeoisie concedes to the demands of the Proletariat, the living conditions of the Proletariat become temporarily much better, bearable even. Short term desires overshadow the dream of the future. By attempting to reform this system, you strengthen it. You destroy any class-consciousness that could've existed, and create a powerful, blindingly comfortable system, essentially Fordist in nature, which immunizes itself to revolution, and by extension, communism as a whole.
File:SorelVpered.png Meta-Religion
We communists are furiously religious. Most of us are unaware of this fact. Most of us blindly worship, without studying the theology behind Marx's sermons, the revolutionary myth which serves as the groundwork for Marxian thought. If we are to create a new, communizing theology so to usher in the new age. First we must reconcile this thought with the contradictions which are inherent in it, and also dispel the millenarian tendencies of revolution. Then we shall discuss the foundations of communist Meta-Religion.
Marxists of all stripes agree on one principle: that of revolution. That communism will come about through a revolution is a nigh-universal among Marxist theoreticians. Whether planned or spontaneous, brutal or bloodless, this Myth is pervasive, a successful memetic infection of the whole Marxist milieu. A myth which has even manifested itself into the material on a mass scale at some points. Revolution can be criticized tactically from numerous points, but such is a task for another day. For now, let us view revolution as a millenarian function(as all myths are).
The revolution will come, says the ghost of Saint Marx(that we still scramble over his bones is a travesty) into the ear of Lenin's rapist. The Revolution can only be brought about through agitation, acceleration, reform, propaganda, crisis, and a thousand other criteria fiercely debated over by Marxists. Belief in it is what holds them(us) through the tough times, and any loss of faith is the most blasphemous of sins. Indeed, shame upon he who embraces reform over revolution, for there can be no greater violation than Kautskyite Lassallean-Luxemburgist reformist humanist anti-humanist deviationism! Not that we have any appreciation for the Reformist swines, but their deviation from the revolutionary myth and the reaction towards it is what interests us. A meme creates conflict with any maladaptive twisting of its properties as a matter of survival. While adaptations can successfully carry a meme through the torrents, adaptations which make it lose it's popularity are incredibly dangerous to it's survival.
It seems to us that revolution is just as much a myth as Sorel's general strike or the Rapture, for a myth needn't be realistic to be followed, to be revered. Revolution, is, in our modern day, a carrot on a stick. While it has a sickly sweet aroma, it is largely defunct today, at least until Capital drags itself into another great crisis. However, we cannot even be sure of that, as the most recent times such events have occurred they have been proceeded by no revolution. It is here we find the millenarian character of revolution. Memes do not survive off of their realization, but their popularity.
Even less effective than revolution is the belief in the inevitability of communism. A basic look at the positive feedback loop of capital disproves this, and such a belief is not but a cushion for crises of faith. That capitalism will collapse under its own weight with no exterior pressure from those who oppose it is a pipe-dream, one even more millenarian than revolution. It is clear to us that capitalism must be actively opposed rather than passively critiqued, and that its collapse must be accelerated by action rather than allowing its natural mechanisms to immunize it to destructive memetic warfare.
These myths are ineffective, most especially in spectacle society, and are due for replacement. They have not survived to today, and should be condemned to the dustbin of history along with every stuffy old obsolete idea. To replace them we must construct a new memetic infection, one to destroy capitalism, one to cause the death of the world.
Hate for what-is. Hate for what-was. Love for what-could-be. Ejaculate hate. Sweat hate, bleed hate, cry hate and shit hate. Hate is a weapon that can kill most anything. Vengeful anger for what has taken everything from one. Self-alienation for the sake of occupation. Hate is our memetic infection. Hate is destructive, but hate for what-is is constructive. It destroys old structures and builds up new ones.
We must go on a warpath against the now. We must propagandize hate. In our art we will hate. Funny how it's only AFTER you love that you start hating. And only out of love can our hate grow, for we wish to use it to sow the seeds of communism, to sow the seeds of freedom.
Collapse is coming. Collapse is close. Collapse is yet another millenarian belief that may or may not come true. I do not particularly care. What I care about is the terror and orgasm it makes churn within us. The fear of collapse has even infected those unconscious of it, from elderly thin-blue-line brandishing gerontocrats to 4channing doomers. Faith in it is what rips us from institutions which exist now. Faith in it is what will liberate us. It is more hyperstitious than most memes, as belief in it and according actions actually promote its realization.
Collapse must come, or all of our plans will fall apart. All of our slavering proclamations about Paris in flames and the death of the world will mean nothing if we do not act on our faith. Shake the foundations. Light fire to the churches of capital, deface property, socialize the means of production, artfuck the governor of Texas while riding a dolphin stimmed up on techno-bathsalts. You are now sapient.
\ Bataille cites Aztec human sacrifice as well as war, as well as the potluck, as well as sex as examples of Glory. What all these events have in common is the theme which ties together all of his works; expenditure. We must spend and spend and spend and spend until we are but juiced husks. We spend our lives on insurrection. We spend our hate to accumulate love. Glorious expenditure characterizes a new economy which comes hurtling out of Capitalism's chest, a sensuous parody of Alien streamed live on twitch!
Glory is more of a basic human need than a meme, but it is a mythical infection nonetheless. The need for Glory is what drives us to war, to sex, to nearly all production. We must weaponize this desire, turn it into a war-machine, and point at the heart of Capital. Glory is our incentive. Glory is what we propagandize, fuck to the sound of, and worship. For Glory is us, and we are Glory. Glory is useless expenditure, decadence at it's finest, the purest pleasure one can experience. Glory is permitted in a limited form to the Bourgeoisie, but it can only be fully realized when it defines society. And so we must fight with hate, proselytize collapse, and create glory.
Hate, Collapse and Glory are the trifold memes which define our theology. Hate is created by the lack of Glorious expenditure endemic in capitalist society, collapse is driven forward by hate. Meta-Religion is the symbolic worship of memes. We conglomerate complex concepts into these memetic idols, and we simplify them until they are easily digestible. Then we must spread them. Make them a destructive virus which courses through capital-society and creates strife wherever it goes. God and Man both died, but their death throes must be intensified until both are finally silent, until the gurgling echoing out of their open hung mouths is cut off.
File:Infect.pngMemetic Infection and Burning Memories
The semi-nebulous cultural unit described by Dawkins as a 'meme' provides an excellent understanding of the way in which cultural notions function virally. Our job is to construct memetic war-machines. Ideas whose very existence poses a existential threat to our current world order. As laid out in prior essays, we understand self-realizing memes as synonymous with Sorelian myths, and we understand meta-religion as faith without true belief. Faith in the meme, in the myth. Our devotion to memetic war-machines is to be infallible.
We are not to understand the Myth in terms of its goals, but its affects as a mode of action, its tangible influences on social relations. While Collapse is what we wish to utilize as a mass-deterritorializing process, reviving Marx's ghost is our true goal. Marxism is not the beliefs and analysis of Karl Marx. It is the grand theoretical network he constructed and which has been revolutionized over and over. It was never about Marx, but the ism. Marxism is the real movement to abolish the present state of things. It is withering, and we must determine whither it must progress. Communization offers us the primary strand of contemporary, updated Marxist thought. It is the future of communism as we know it. But for it to succeed, we must both revive and revolutionize the meta-narrative of communism. Communization, as of now, has not gained popularity outside of already-deeply-communist circles. What if we were to propagandize a myth of communization? We need to figure a way to spread communization without delving into Marxist theory. We must weaponize the spectre of Marx. To do this, we must look to the failures and successes of the only authentic communist movements of the 20th century, of modernity; The Left-Communists. Better people then I have already analyzed the Italian and Dutch-German left, but there is yet to be a concrete analysis of the left-communists and futurists of Russia. Vpered, the branch of the Bolsheviks led by Bogdanov, Maxim Gorky and Lunacharsky, pioneered concepts of Proletkult, the idea of constructing a new proletarian culture to surpass and replace what once was, as well as that of God-Building, the revival of religion in an atheistic manner in which the myth of communism and its values are worshipped. Though their ideas were preoccupied with humanism and revolution, they can certainly be salvaged.
Look around you. People, so overstimulated that they're bored, sipping their tasteless colas and consuming their worthless art. They are in need of an awakening. Communism as a myth is the promise of a freer world where the individual can fulfill their potential to the best of their ability and production is subjugated for use and glory rather than exchange. What if we were to proselytize to them first? Promise them nothing but the slight chance of liberation and the freedom guaranteed by insurrection. Perhaps pass out pamphlets, perhaps create art, perhaps scream at them in the fucking streets. Regardless, this is nothing but proselytizing. Our religion shall be evangelical. This movement is defined by the abolition of gender, the weaponization of hate, and the revival of the grand-narrative-myth of communism. We have nothing to offer but our rage. Our business shall be drawing lines of flight out of this hellhole. But these lines of flight mustn't be escapes, but holes burned through the fabric. Meta-Modernism is the revival of modern myths while understanding that they may not come true, and such a belief will be integral to our propaganda.
All we can offer is insurrection, and the potential of liberation. All we can give is love and a rough plan. All we have is each other. All we will do is destroy and create. All we are is a blinding mass. All we will be is a blinding mass. A chorus of hate and love, spreading through the streets like a plague. All we have to lose is our chains. And what have we to win? The world.
Biomechanical Futures
H.R Giger pioneered the 'Biomechanical' aesthetic. A darkly beautiful fusion of flesh and metal, blood and oil. It was carnal, it was interconnecteed, it was uniform and complex, chaotically ordered and structured like a weaving, cybernetic web of meat. While later contributions to the film series 'Alien' became his claim to fame, it is Giger's visionary conception of futures that is truly valuable. A radical assault on bioconservativism that never failed to stimulate all of the body's feelings.
In capitalism, biological uniformity is inevitable. Social stratification makes unconscious eugenics integral, and inbreeding becomes a norm. In almost every society, it is prohibited to engage in cross-class gene transfer. The Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie both become genetically uniform and become synonymous with the old racial myth. As we become more biologically uniform, we become more 'human'. Posthumanity is postponed. This is bioconservativism at it's finest. Also prevented is the liberation of 'females' from the horrific chains of their own biology. Until reproduction becomes disconnected from sex, feminism will not have succeeded. We must all become cyborgs, every last one of us.
We must schizophrenize our biology, every individual barely the same species as the next. But the attack on bioconservativism posed by human genetic engineering is only part of a greater ensemble. Some of my peers propose a 'post-artifism'(how a 'post-' can develop before any theory existend on the original is beyond me), but as I understand it this is the total annihilation of both the bioconservative 'sanctity of nature' and the bio-stratification of society. Proposing radical changes to every biological aspect of our lives, this ism represents a total embrace of biotechnology. It wishes to modify nature rather than preserve it, and this is a central aspect of the coming biomechanical revolution. As we find that plastivorous bacterias, biocomputers and fungal housing is preferable to environmentalist promises of 'clean energy', we actively erase the false boundary between the biosphere and the technosphere.
Transgender individuals are perhaps living examples of biomechanical posthumans. Hormonal modifications create genderbending bodies, and constructed organs provide new functionalities. A mechanical structure within the neophallus produces on-demand erections, clitoral growth produces a new organ, the neovagina allows for sexual functionalities unique from cisgender bodyplans. The frequent usage of accesories to modify the appearance and surgeries to modify the body represent a cyborgian integration with technology as-of-now unseen. While the transhumanists salivate at their useless door-opening microchips, individuals assigned-male-at-birth are nursing babies. They are already posthuman.
While transgender people represent one front being opened against bioconservativism, biological anarchy is our all-encompassing battleplan. What it is? The abolition of all limits on biological modification. The freeing of possibility from the chains of 'ethics' and 'rationality'. The liberation of women from womenhood, and man from manhood. The destruction of man on a biological level, and the creation of posthumanity past paltry cybernetic implants. This is biopunk. This is H.R Giger's biomechanism. Machine and Flesh become one, while they produce ever stranger forms, ever more beautiful symphonies, ever more beating, pulsating neo-organs, ever more futures, and ever more delights.
File:Postmodernenlight.pngA Very Dark Enlightenment.
The advent of postmodernity was no simple change in Philosophy. It was a paradigm shift. Everything that was once believed in was turned on its head, and a new world emerged. To use an overused term, it was a watershed moment. A shift in thinking so catastrophic it could be compared to the Enlightenment. A much darker one. 20th century philosophy was an attempt to respond to the modern condition. 21st century philosophy is an attempt to respond to the postmodern-capitalist condition. And there have been oh-so many responses.
Narrative after narrative after narrative crumbled in the face of postmodernity. What little meaning remained became a commodity. Believe in communism? Communism is dead. Believe in capitalism? It hurts too much. Believe in nothing at all? You should see the depression rates.[1] The future was quite literally cancelled after the fall of the Soviet Union. The old myths came into a crisis. Ushered in was an age of decadent questioning of the old mythologies, the old faiths. What once was had to either adapt or get out. And adapt it did. The first reaction was an attempt at reviving the prior narratives in the same way they had existed in the past, but modifying them in a way that was not too radical, never too much, never excessive. Well, it was at the start. You see, the EZLN and the WTO protests paint a picture of the very early resurrection of the 'anti-capitalist myth'. But what we notice is the inability to mount a permanent opposition. It is almost as if the myth had been exhausted by the past century, and its death throes were significantly weakened. It slept for a while longer, but this time it came back in a different form. Its old self still haunts it as fringe student unions and cultish Marxist-Leninist sects(its original self all but lost), but it finds its primary expression in muted, neutered opposition. It was no longer 'liquidate the bourgeoisie', it was 'redistribute their wealth'.
The anti-capitalist myth's failure to adapt has led to some interesting offshoots. First, we find Mark Fisher, informed by Derrida's Hauntology, the study of the dying myth of communism and how it could be resurrected. Mark Fisher was largely disconnected from actual materialist analysis like his predecessors. His untimely death essentially halted any discourse on a potential 'acid communism', but by digging up his grave we can find some fascinating bones. Fisher understood Capitalist Realism as the exorcism of Marx's Spectre. The annihilation of any and all alternatives. The Communist myth has been hijacked time and time again, but never before has it been so blatantly raped. But to Fisher, hope was not lost(at least not yet at the time of his text's publication,) for the absolute and unrelenting attack on communism was a testament to the incredible danger the thought of communism posed to things-as-they-are. Next, we find Aleksandr Dugin. At first glance, one simply sees an anti-liberal putinist fistpounder, but Dugin is no fool. Far from it, Dugin is the modulation of Fascism in reaction(as always) to the Postmodern condition. Dugin is confronted by a similar problem as Fisher, and Derrida before him; whither fascism? He understands the discredited nature of both Marxism-Leninism and Fascism, two nominally anti-capitalist movements very dear to him. To Dugin, these movements presented the only viable case for the subjugation of capital to human interests, in particular, cultural interests. The national myth is the one being threatened. The unifying, self-alienating 'national, organic consciousness' is being withered by the globalist menace. The liberal, neoconservative onslaught upon national boundaries, upon boundaries themselves threatens to deconstruct everything Dugin holds dear. And so he dusts off the oldest trick in the doctrine of fascism; the utilization of the proletariat for the interests of the nation-state. He synthesizes the two movements that have both posed a threat to liberalism: Marxism-Leninism and Fascism. Dugin brandishes the old phrase "socialism without internationalism, nationalism without capitalism!" and runs with it. Dugin accepts postmodern relativism and structural analysis, but accepts the existing structures and above all wishes to maintain them. He presents us a form of 'postmodern fascism', an updated form of fascism for the postmodern era. Dugin and Fisher engage in what we shall call the metamodernist response to the postmodern condition. The revival of past grand narratives and their modification to operate in postmodernity.
The Neoreactionary movement, Post-Anarchism and Communization Theory are three potential responses to the postmodern condition that are built upon prior responses to the modernist era. First of all we must answer the question of what Neoreaction is, before we can even begin an analysis of it. Pioneered by Mencius Moldbug(Curtis Yarvin) and Nick Land, NRx is defined by two things: a totalizing, dystopian analysis of capital united with a pragmatic desire to escape such realities. Here we see a fresh answer to the issue of self-interested capital: the privatization of the state. It is assumed that this can align human and market interests, to the benefit of this new state-bourgeoisie. Capital is allowed to run wild in exchange for it's accumulation. A decentralized, market based network of neo-cameralist city states in vein of Singapore are established, in which general welfare is somewhat ensured through post-libertarian measures and a strong, corporate state protects the 'rights' of its constituents. This is a somewhat realistic and pragmatic solution to postmodern capitalism(its potential for realization being something I am unable to comment on) as it accepts things as they are and desires moderate change. NRx is what one might understand as the bourgeois response to postmodern-capitalism: the protection of profit accumulation in the face of inhuman coldness. Post-Anarchism is another response to postmodern-capitalism. Largely rejecting any hope for significant change, it, like NRx, looks for ways to find joy in the system as-it-is. Looking back to Stirner and informed by Foucault and Deleuze, Post-Anarchism is in essence the theoretical wing of lifestylism. Embracing non-action and reveling in the few freedoms we have is the aim of Post-Anarchism. An admirable goal indeed. However, Post-Anarchism hits a fault when it must recognize that Anarchy-as-a-lifestyle is significantly limited by contemporary structures. Communization Theory is perhaps a better reflection of Neoreaction across the political axis. Accepting postmodern analysis, Communization Theory endeavors to abolish existing structures to make way for a revitalized communism. Similar to NRx, it desires to remodel economic relations in a novel way, producing communistic social relations through the negation of capitalist ones. Such diverse threads are spun by the postmodern enlightenment. Fascism, Communism, Capitalism and Anarchism have all received a philosophical facelift in the face of postmodern-capitalism, but which of these answers are correct? Which of these responses may lead us out of the dark? While partially throwing bets on Communization and Postanarchism, I think that as of now, there is no answer.
Relations
Disruptors
Jefbol Thought Very cool. I agree on most things, except well, the state and communization and such, but ultimately your ideas are very positive. Let's destroy social peace together, comrade.- Template:Iouser Essentially the same as me, but with a slightly different analysis of gender.
- Template:Puri Thought The above.
HelloThere314 Very good.- File:Cynicallibra.png Cynicalianism Mid, but ultimately positive. I'm willing to concede some of my immediate desires for the sake of my long term desires. While a state of events like that you imagine is far from ideal from my perspective, in the event it does occur, the benefits of such a system outweigh the risks of opposing it(although it's rather impossible within the Post-Industrial world...)
- Template:Aristocratic Futurism I wouldn't mind your system at all. Just as I view the Ultras as being beneficial to my cause, I view crazy bastards like you as progressive.
Neo-Optimateism We agree on everything up until the question is asked: What is to be done? Regardless of our disagreements, we're both destabilizing forces, and I look forward to collaborating with you in the future.
Polianism I think views like yours are incredibly volatile, and I think that if they can memetically infect enough people they could cause actual political chaos. So bravo, please, keep doing what you're doing. (Also, to utilize rgoist speak, you're spooked to hell and back. At least we're both against humanism.)
Neo-Erissianism Difficult to critique since we largely have the same philosophical positions but a different conclusion. Regardless, we both evangelize collapse.- Template:Cyberdelic Egoism I've nothing to disagree with. We are almost exactly the same.
- File:Kartia.png Uberglowism Excellent. I would strongly encourage you to read the works of Kropotkin, Occalan, Bookchin and Bakunin. While I disagree with all of those thinkers, I in fact support their aims and methods, and would rather see a unique ideologue rather than another boring one. My only gripe is Chomsky, a passionate hatred of mine. Chomsky is largely pacifistic and has never engaged in any real revolutionary struggle. His philosophical views are largely deplorable, such as believing in 'objectivity'. Additionally, his linguistics are just a back-up for his humanistic 'human nature' perspectives.
Salvationism I disagree with almost everything, but your economics are progressive, so you get to be here. Yay.
Altemism Reactionaries like you could perhaps stir up some discontent.
Bores and Cucks.
- Great British New Left Boring, boring, boring, boring. Why even try? All taxes are going to do is improve things! While I agree that these temporary improvements would be nice, they basically immunize the system to revolution. They literally make communism farther away, because the state is controlled by the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie, will, therefore, prevent any Proletarian takeover of the state. Also, the individual has no rights beyond what the state has given. Catholicism? Really? The nation IS socially constructed. Why follow a social construct? I've no idea. I just generally find your ideas so drab.
Meowxism What Jef said.- Template:NameEvolutionarySocialism Do you not see that reforms only strengthen the system you naive fool? How could improving capitalism ever bring about it's fall? The rehabilitating rot of possibilism must be destroyed at all costs.
Yoda8soup I must say, this is perhaps the final boss of well-meaning reformism.- Template:Atronic Utopian. You create an idealistic vision of how your society would be structured, rather than a general outline and without a viable method to achieve this society. Additionally, the system you describe does not seem focused on constructing lower or higher-phase communism, but rather 'socialism', the transitional stage characterized by the DoTP. My usual criticisms of the state stand, and I don't think you're positing anything particularly special.
BERNHEism Essentially everything I hate, but your ultimate endgoal is... somewhat admirable, and your cultural positions could be a lot worse.
Neo-Glencoeism Very, very bad, but I think your foreign policy views will accelerate collapse.
- Template:.dotdotdotsam Thought I have no idea how you could contend that a system in which wage-labor, markets and private property is socialist. Your conception that the imperial system is unipolar, i,e centered in one bloc is flawed. It is multipolar, with the U.S and NATO and the Moscow-Beijing-Tehran axis forming it's two primary forces. Could you please inform me as to how I am petty-bourgeois? I could understand Lumpenpole, but petty-bourgeois? I agree my section on fascism was flawed, it wasn't materialist enough. You'll hate my upcoming section even more.
Brazilian Liberalism B O R I N G
Heredism I honestly find it regrettable to place you in this section. You have shown yourself to be a kind individual and to have a keen interest in political and philosophical discussion. Unfortunately, you're a social democrat. So you're the antithesis of everything I believe in.- Meowxism Gender Accelerationism is a bit of a misuse of the term in a Landian sense, and needs to fully reject identity rather than it's multiplication. Identity ⋅ X ≠ Identity ⋅ 0. Your embrace of Marxism-Leninism makes a bleeding contradiction against futurism. Socialist Realism quite literally killed Russian Futurism, and figures like Bogdanov and Mayakovsky would be rolling in their graves if they knew their ideas were being bastardized with Stalinism.
- From a Left-Communist standpoint, I will critique Stalin. For one, commodity production is the very essence of capitalism. Socialist commodities are oxymoronic. They are products made to be sold rather than used, exchange value over use value, something with runs aground with basic Marxian economic orientations. Commodities exist to accumulate Capital in the hands of the Bourgeoisie. In fact, name one thing differentiating Stalinist bureaucrats from the Bourgeoisie, beyond the idealist 'public' rather than 'private' distinction. Why would it be idealist, you ask? The material-social relations are what define something, not its self-identification. From a explicitly materialist standpoint, this 'State-Bourgeoisie' exists to manage the accumulation of Capital into the hands of one massive corporation, that being the Soviet Union itself. Back to commodities; it is no wonder Marx begins Das Kapital with a critical analysis of commodities themselves, rather than the ideologically driven propagandistic orientation of simple texts like the Communist Manifesto. It is not through idealistic fistpounding that communism is constructed, but rather through scientific analysis. After all, as you and your 'comrades' often claim, is this not the Eternal Science of Marxism? Surely the deconstruction the Marxian method enables should be applied to self-proclaimed 'socialist states' as well?
- File:Grpball.png German.red.patriot Thought I actually agree, I'm such a wannabe intellectual edgelord. If you'd ever talked to me on discord or smth, you'd know I'm a silly goober and try not to be edgy, it's mostly my philosophy itself that's edgy if that makes sense. Anyways, I largely have the same criticism of you as I did with Meowx, and I encourage you to read Amadeo Bordiga's Dialogue with Stalin.
- File:Julianism wolf.png Julianism Strange. You say 'we need a libertarian socialist democratic state to stabilize things before we can achieve anarchy', and yet anarchy is the very antithesis of stability. Communism cannot be achieved through order, but rather realized through mass chaos. Additionally, cooperative market socialism is a form of corporatist economy(in that groups are treated as individuals). The individual is erased on an economic level, and instead of the socialization of the means of production, they are centralized in the hands of corporate firms known as cooperatives which have none of the advantages of an authentic market economy and all the downsides of an authentic socialist economy. There is no incentive to work in a system where producers are alienated from their products and instead paid a value which market "socialists" hope would be equivalent to the value of that produced. However, this is impossible, as no profit would be made in such a system. Markets cannot properly function without exploitation. If instead the worker's products are confiscated by the collective, sold at a marked-up value from the actual labor required for production, the proceeds are then divided equally amongst the workers, then the worker is no longer exploited monetarily but is still alienated from their product. This cooperative system would eventually lead to the formation of massive monopolies, eventually culminating in what is essentially a couple corporations which manage every single economic sector, and then lobby the state officials to deregulate the economy, and we're almost back at square one, capitalism. However, you say, there is still equal payment to every worker! Such a system is inherently unfair, as some work is more valuable than other work. Why pay the data-entryist the same amount as the factory worker? And yet, once payment is distributed unequally and accorded to labor-value, almost all workers would become furious about their unequal payments out of self-interest. These are just a couple of the glaring issues of market socialism, but I could go on.
- Template:Ego-Libertarian Marxism Why would you support Sanders? Reformist scum.
- Template:Ego-Libertarian Marxism - I am sympathetic of him, he got me into politics, but I am no reformist.
The Enemy
Ultra-Enlightenment - You... You scare me.
Tiberius Thought I critiqued you before, but I found it lacking. First of all, your perspective that communism cannot universalize an aristocracy of the soul is a textbook misunderstanding of communism. There will be no centralized system to spread goodwill and happiness. Nay, instead, producers may distribute what they produce whichever way they wish. While individuals may very well form large collectives based upon mutual gain, there will not be a formal structure devoted to 'from each according to his, to each according to his need'. You mention genes and spirit. I'm certain you are well aware of the basis for my rejection of the 'spirit' argument, but the genetics are slightly more difficult to refute. This argument relies on the belief that there is objective, quantifiable ways to measure one's 'greatness'. Such a narrow perspective ignores that different individuals have different interests, different interests demand different aptitudes, but there is no one 'correct' way to become oneself. If one has a genetic predisposition for say, cognitive achievement, hwo are they any more than one with an aptitude for athletic pursuits? While communism may not universalize aristocracy, it will most certainly enable it to a greater extent.
Comments
- File:Julianism wolf.png Julianism add me back socdem
Template:.dotdotdotsam Thought - yes, your section on fascism was fucking terrible I'm glad you agree. Anyways, no, China is objectively not an imperialist power as it is engaged in the transferring of a greater amount of surplus value to the core countries in the capitalist world system than it receives from the periphery. Thus, China is a semi-periphery socialist country (well on the path to being the nail in the coffin of US imperialism). Also, socialism isn't a checklist; you can't simply mark something off as "socialist" because it does not have the complete requirements for building socialism. China, due to its enormous size and historical maldevelopment by British imperialism, has several constraints on socialist development it's had to overcome. I'm not a fan of the billionaires and poor working conditions in China, but fortunately neither is Xi's CPC, as the CPC has undergone a left-wing shift in the past decade and undergone several highly successful poverty alleviation programs. China is certainly far from perfect, but it is objectively not a capitlaist-imperialist power. It has been a valuable asset to Latin American socialism.
- File:PandemoniumTheory.pngPandemonium Theory I genuinely do not understand how someone could delude themselves to such an extent. For one, it's literally impossible to claim objectivity, so don't even try. Secondly, China has an economic system with:
- Private Ownership of the Means of Production
- The Profit Motive
- Wage Labor
- Commodity Production
- A Market Economy
- Class Division
- Imperialism: China is an Imperialist power. It engages in the continuous economic domination of foreign nations under the guise of anti-imperialism and development. Through it's engagements in the Belt and Road Initiative, Debt Diplomacy primarily focused on underdeveloped nations in Africa, Chinese aggression and territorial expansion in India and the South China sea, and African resource extraction programs, as well as backing Russia in Ukraine and the Caucasus, financing the Burmese government, support for the Sudanese government during its civil war and support for Iranian interests in the Middle East, China has for the past couple decades been constructing a global imperialist system of elevated pseudo-proxies like Russia, Pakistan and Iran, peripheral satellite states like Laos and the DPRK, indebted post-soviet and post-colonial nations, territorial aggression and the rapid development of it's productive forces in order to out-maneuver any potential economic rivals, a system in which the interests of billions are subordinated to that of China's bureaucratic state-bourgeoisie. I completely agree, China is well on the way to being the nail in the coffin for U.S imperialism, so that we may make way for Chinese Imperialism! In the words of Nick Land, arguably one of the most brilliant philosophers of the 21st century(and a resident of China): "Neo-China arrives from the future . . . The Superiority of Far Eastern Marxism. Whilst chinese materialist dialectic denegativizes itself in the direction of schizophrenizing systems dynamics, progressively dissipating top-down historical destination in the Tao-drenched Special Economic Zones, a re-Hegelianized æwestern marxism' degenerates from the critique of political economy into a state-sympathizing monotheology of economics, siding with fascism against deregulation. The left subsides into nationalistic conservatism, asphyxiating its vestigial capacity for æhot' speculative mutation in a morass of æcold' depressive guilt-culture . . . As sino-pacific boom and automatized global economic integration crashes the neocolonial world system, the metropolis is forced to re-endogenize its crisis. Hyper-fluid capital deterritorializing to the planetary level divests the first world of geographic privilege; resulting in Euro-American neo-mercantilist panic reactions, welfare state deterioration, cancerizing enclaves of domestic underdevelopment, political collapse, and the release of cultural toxins that speed-up the process of disintegration in a vicious circle." To paraphrase, this is THE capitalist philosopher positively GLOATING about the glory of China's political-economic system and the way in which it has displaced the Euro-American Empire to replace it with A Sino-3rd World Order.
- Template:.dotdotdotsam Thought - I explicitly told you that socialism isn't a checklist and you go on to make a literal checklist.... lmao. anyways, no the Belt-and-Road initiative isn't a "debt trap", this claim is even disputed among bourgeois scholars. The Center for Global Development, an authoritative source, had this to say about the Belt-and-Road initiative: “Our analysis finds that BRI is unlikely to cause a systemic debt problem in the regions of the initiative’s focus. While the aggregate numbers look large, when assessed in the context of the size of the economies that are likely to benefit from BRI investments, the amounts are consistent with current levels of infrastructure investment.” . The talking point of "Chinese imperialism" is a consistent projection by the Western imperialist bourgeoisie who are grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to thwart China's rise. Also I'm sorry you had to go through the trouble of quoting Nick Land, because I have literally no idea what any of that means. Nick Land is literally deranged I don't know how he's an authority on anything lol. China's development financing has led to an alternative to neoliberal austerity in times of crisis, which proves why it has become so popular in Latin America and Africa. But coming from the guy who said "Mao Zedong is a fascist" and quoted Nick Land as a rebuttal, I'm not sure if this post-left analysis holds much weight anyways.
Glorified Communism I'm aware that you claim that socialism isn't a checklist, but checklists are uh... kind of how definitions work? To say that something is socialist because it claims so is pure idealism. Nick Land, while holding views I disagree with, is a brilliant theorist. You seem to be unable to fathom that there could be more than one imperialist power in the world. Even if BRI isn't a debt-trap, China is most definitely NOT doing it out of 'third world solidarity', but rather attempting to construct a massive anti-american bloc to prop up its own power.
- KK - Hey Cholera, when you called the Nordics Fascist, you've readed this book?
File:LITERALLYHITLER.png Anyways it's very childish to call someone you don't like a Fascist or a Commie.
- Glorified Communism I am a commie for one, two, I view fascism as any political movement or structure utilizing proletarian rhetoric for bourgeois aims. Additionally, it's economic system is a contemporary update to fascist corporatism.
- Neo-Glencoeism- Care to explain how my forgien policy veiws will speed up collapse when I have not even said what my foreign policy views are?
- Glorified Communism I suppose I assumed they were standard NATOist, interventionist Neocon stances, which in my eyes speed up the collapse of the current global order.
Nixonism - Nixon 2024
Mordecaism - Add me
- Yoda8soup - Hey E-coli camel, can you add me? :)
- Template:Aristocratic Futurism - It seems like you have misunderstood my ideology, a lot.
- Glorified Communism Well I mean, I couldn't have done better based upon the info given.
- Template:Atronic - Add me?
- Template:Cyberdelic Egoism - While I am one, I don't call myself communist for the correlations.
- Heredism - Re-Add me mate
- Meowxism - if you didn't notice, jef changed his relations with my ideology. so maybe you could upd what u said abt me or?
- Great British New Left - CAn YoU KEEP A DETAIL ABOUT YOUR IDEOLOGY THE SAME FOR F I V E M I N U T E S CAMEL XD
- Altemism - Add me back?
Theocratic Patchwork/Post-Calculustism Update me?- Template:Ego-Libertarian Marxism - Hey Cthulhu, can you add me?
- Salvationism - yo fellow real mfer of beste 😤 pls update
- Template:Ego-Libertarian Marxism - I just said he influenced me. He is what initially got me into the political left. I'm not a reformist and I never said it would work. (I was saying if they as an egoist was sympathetic towards Sanders, then we would probably get along. That is all.)
- ↑ Between 1987 and 1997 depression rates doubled. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2888013/#:~:text=In%201987%2C%200.73%20persons%20per,leaped%20to%202.33%20per%20hundred.