Post-Jefbolism

Self Insert "People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism This page is meant to represent Jefbol's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission.

Post-Jefbolism
Caption.
Basic Information
Aliases	User Aliases (feel free to add) Theory Converter 9000 Red Pilled Marxism The Slayer of Socdems Pizza Tower Shizoanalysis
Alignments	Communists Internationalists
Ideological Influences
Influenced by	Anti-Humanism Base Materialism Council Communism Deleuzoguattarianism Nietzscheanism Occult Post-Humanism Post-Modernism Post-Structuralism Post-Marxism Situationism Spinozian Marxism
Influenced	Glorified Communism Hoodism Voidvill Rajandeep
Ideological Information
Notable Theorists	Jefbol (2006-)
Notable Ideas	Liberating Spontaneity Social Capital The Integration of the Proletariat Rebellion of the Everyday
Character Information
Song	Flight of Icarus Hand of Doom Crazy Train One

Post-Jefbolism is an "ideology".

Essentially, this is my attempt to combine post-structuralist and schizoanalytic study of signs and psychology with a dehegelized Marxism. The core of my beliefs is my opinion that as communism is the movement to abolish the current state of things, the movement to destratify desire and power from class and from state apparatuses, communism can only be achieved through active struggle, this being influenced by the Situationists and their "revolution of everyday life". In accordance with this, I am in support of the generalized self-management of the everyday through the fludity of the council, which through this transcends the proletarian condition. I am influenced primarily in my writings by Baruch Spinoza, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels , Friedrich Nietzsche, Antonie Pannekoek, Wilhelm Reich, Jacques Lacan, Paul Mattick, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari , Guy Debord, and Antonio Negri.

Icons for if you want to add me: (///)

Beliefs

Spontaneity

1. Communism is not an ideal or a utopia to be chased after, not a system to be established, some abstract goal for an ideal society to be modeled after through the iron fists of state apparatuses. It does not merely exist in autonomous zones, in individual lifestyles, in government initiatives. Rather, is the movement to abolish the current state of things, it is an active process. It actively seeks to abolish class, wage labor, the commodity, states, gender, nationhood, etc. The proletariat is a war machine against Capital, it is the class which is capable of abolishing these current capitalist relations, of killing real life gods and demons.

2. The proletariat desires to destratify desire, to let it free from the tendrils of machinery and territory attempting to swallow it up. This is what makes it a war machine in the first place. "A new era in the class struggle is beginning. The workers have imposed it on the capitalists, through the objective violence of their organized strength in the factories. Capital’s power appears to be stable and solid; the balance of forces appears to be weighed against the workers. And yet precisely at the points where capital’s power appears most dominant, we see how deeply it is penetrated by this menace, this threat of the working class."

3. The struggle to negate Capital is the struggle to negate the proletarian. The desire to destratify desire, to abolish current social conditions, is necessarily suicidal. The "proletariat" is only a multitude after all, a loose condition subjected onto them by Capital. Such a condition is undesirable, it only means stratification and more stratification.

4. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari explained already how the war machine, something independent of territory, something which sought to destroy the existing conditions, has been subjected to the state and Capital itself. Used as a cow for the milking of the state's reproduction and therefore of Capital's reproduction, something whom we could say to emphasize their identities would be to reproduce their stratification. The war machine has become a co-dependency of production, a cog in the state machine. Is this not sounding familiar?

5. The proletariat indeed is at its core autonomous from Capital. But there exists a catch! The proletariat's spontaneity is first choked out of its revolutionary components, and then used to fuel the bourgeois institutions of power, turned into a mass consumer/worker base to be domesticated into servants of Capital. Its entire existence is at the mercy of Capital, as it is incorporated into power structures and milked for the purposes of the production and accumulation of commodities, and the reproduction of Capital within daily life. Class struggle ironically becomes shaved out of its soul as it becomes only a spectacle, a place of affirmation for only small glimpses of spontaneous desiring. The real class struggle exists now in spite of contradiction between affirmation of conditions and negation of conditions. Its resolving and the communist struggle to abolish classes can only the proletarian's own suicide.

6. The workingman desires his own condition. This is something that Deleuze & Guattari examined closely, as well as Lyotard, who analyzed in the Libidinal Economy critiqued former notions of ideology. Marx theorized that the proletariat has been stopped in their tracks from realizing their condition because of some ideological fantasy we are made to believe in, some trickery by the bourgeoisie. In reality, this is all but nonsense. Do we really have to quote Lyotard just for this? "The English unemployed did not become workers to survive, they - hang on tight and spit on me ­enjoyed [ifs ont joui de] the hysterical, masochistic, whatever exhaustion it was of hanging on in the mines, in the foundries, in the factories, in hell, they enjoyed it, enjoyed the mad destruction of their organic body which was indeed imposed upon them, they enjoyed the decomposition of their personal identity, the identity that the peasant tradition had constructed for them, enjoyed the dissolution of their families and villages, and enjoyed the new monstrous anonymity of the suburbs and the pubs in the morning and evening." Capital is not merely tricking its subjects into believing in its own logic, instead it is controlling desire on a large scale, making it produce the conservative libidinal deposits that make it thrive.

7. Spontaneity is the expression of the desire to decode desire, to break free from Capital's hyper-stratification and to negate the condition of oppression. it is an expression of a desire for power. Through strikes, protests, riots, etc. These are genuine attempts at escaping the proletarian condition, a refusal to be mere puppets of production. Spontaneity however can only be exercised within whatever territories Capital allows it to, ultimately, they are easily crushed by Capital. Such displays are only spectacular displays of failed escape. But they do show one thing; desire even when stratified necessarily remains there, to create insurrectionary attitudes means an offensive on the psychological field of combat.

(WIP)

Relations

Add an alias to this page if you want to get added

Messtarded Tier

• Messardism () - 🫡

Gemerald

• Glorified Communism () - Very cool guy with very cool beliefs, perhaps the closest to me in terms of philosophical and political matches.
• Kimno Thought () - Fellow left communist and Nietzschean, though I would criticize your support for the party-form(?).
• Venatrixism () - My student! Very much like the above, but very much so still a baby communist. Also you are very systematic and I think a bit too workerist, something which inadvertently goes against your supposed Marxism.

Gem

• Caatinguism () - "We consider Trotsky the most able spokesman for Bolshevism, and he should have been Lenin’s successor. By his revolutionary fervor Trotsky captivated all the dissidents that Stalinism had thrown out of the Communist Parties, and in inoculating them with the Bolshevik virus it rendered them almost incapable of understanding the great new tasks of the proletarian revolution." Overall fine however besides your Leninism. Trotsky was very much so correct in his thesis on permanent revolution (the transformation of democratic revolution into the task of the proletariat/into proletarian revolution), as well as in his critique of socialism in one country.

Dust

• Nurulisme () - I really do not know how to feel about this. On one hand, I agree heavily with your Marxism (even if limited), post-structuralism, emphasis on the council-form, your view of Capital not as just abstract money accumulation but a living god, etc. However, I notice a few very bad flaws of yours. First and most obvious is your nationalism, specifically your view of the nation (“civilization” as you call it) as the manifestation of the will/of existence, something which you borrow from Dugin. I also dislike your emphasis on the party-form and the vanguard quite expectedly. But the thing I want to focus on is your rejection of higher phase communism. You state that “One could organize an economy based on a system of need and gifts but we live in a far more complicated world with many such inter-connected nodes in very far-reaching places that necessitate some form of mass scale coordination and which requires mediums for execution (money, social book-keeping, divisions of labour, or more broadly, an input-output system). This is where i got disillusioned by communism and turned to it's moderate form of socialism where the living organism of civilization whilst still living is not contained by an autocratic command structure.” And yet this is something Marx and the GIK both noticed, how can we calculate demand/need (need in the context of communism, just like how you pointed out with the market, does not necessarily depend on a differentiation between “need” and “want”) without some level of book-keeping or without an input-output system? Communism does not see the social book-keeping system, mass coordination, or the input-output feedbacks as a basis for economics destroyed, rather it is its universalization, because without it communism and “each according to his ability to reach according to his needs” would just be a utopian fantasy. With your rejection of higher-phase communism, I see your overall views descending into just another petit bourgeois critique of capitalism. Overall, I don’t know how to feel about this.
• Neo-StockMarketCrash Thought () - Fellow Deleuzian and Nietzschean, but god damn am I disappointed looking through this. Firstly, I dislike your mutualism, because although you proclaim yourself to be against capitalism, what you don't see is that markets and their existence necessitate capital accumulation, the survival of the commodity-form, of wages, etc. And your nationalism sticks out like a sore thumb, contradicting everything else you believe (yes, even Proudhonianism and Sorelianism).

Coal

• Proletariat builderism () - I despise the Christianity, the Platonism, and Natural Law nonsense, otherwise quite hard to follow along due to the contradictory and confusing influences.
• Alstūdism () - Very cool as a person, but this blind petit bourgeois romanticism that you and the rest of the fascists hold dear is indeed vile, with it encouraging the self-desiring of his or hers' own repression by the abstract ideal of the "nation" and by such an ideal's militaristic fury.
• Meowxism () - Incredibly contradictory beliefs, and you've shown yourself to not understand anything about Deleuzian or post-structuralist theory, let alone your own movement's theory. Fine person, however.
•  BERNHEism () - What saves you from being in brimstone is how honestly you present your political and economic views, for you seek only efficiency and stability no matter what for capitalism, your politics stripped of any democratic illusions of rights and the people's power, something that I very much so can respect. You're also a very good friend of mine, so there's that.
• Pantheonism () - Here it is, the petit bourgeois socialist who wishes to relieve society of the dangers of big capital so the small capital of the petit bourgeoisie can hang on for just a short while, a reactionary at heart who seeks to entrench the tyranny of the guilds of small producers like what was in medieval times, all for the sake of some vague anti-capitalism.

Brimstone

• Brazilian Liberalism () - Pathetic and delusional priest of capitalism, nothing much to say.
• Tedcruzfan Thought () - Libra, you're unfunny and retarded, and this is the greatest showcase of this.

Post-Post-Post-Post-Incomprehensible Tier

• Voidvill Rajandeep () - I'm sorry but what the actual fuck is thi-
  • - Blud doesn't even recognize one of his students 💀
    • - I don't know what you expect from a demented old man as myself.
      • - What do you understand or comprehend at least of my thought?
        • - The actual concepts on there I get, I just don’t get how they all fit together into one.
          • - I thought I had finally made something sensible/understandable, but eh, thanks for giving me a writing style that works and frees the insides even if it is not really essays

Comments

• Distributist Reactionarism - Add me
•  Baxism - Add me.
• Voidvill Rajandeep - Add me oh great ultra-leftist
• Venatrixism - add me plz
• Vistulism - Hello Jefbol, add me please if you wouldn't mind.
• Brazilian Liberalism - Add
• Kimno Thought - Add me armchair man. I'll update you when I actually make my page
• Tedcruzfan Thought - Add me
• Proletariat builderism please add me
• Meowxism - add? i upd'd my ideology a bit lol
• Agricoetism - Add me :3
•  BERNHEism - Add me, Mr. Best Nemesis
•  Meadowsin's Basilisk - Add me? :)
• Caatinguism - holy shit its Jeff Bezos, add me
• HelloThere314 - Add me?