HelloThere314ism

Self Insert "People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism This page is meant to represent HelloThere314's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission.

Work in Progress "I'll be done any day now!" - Still-Being-Drawnism This page is not done yet and may still contain inaccurate information or miss important details.

HelloThere314ism
“Revolution is aimed at new arrangements; insurrection [Empörung] leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and set no glittering hopes on 'institutions.'” - Max Stirner
Basic Information
Aliases	Feel Free To Add!
Alignments	Post-Left Anarchist Communist Culturally Far-Left
Ideological Influences
Influenced by	Stirnerite Egoism Communization Post-Anarchism Post-Structuralism Existential Phenomenology

Hello, I'm HelloThere314, and this is my self insert.

In short I take an Anti-Foundationalist approach to both philosophy and politics. This leads me philosophically to Stirner's idea of Egoism, to base one's cause on nothing, along with an immanent view of Phenomenology, Existentialism, and Post-Structuralism (Mostly the theories of Deleuze and Foucault.) These influences lead me to an idiosyncratic notion of subjectivity, from which I base my philosophical analysis and Insurrectionary politics. My politics is primarily based on Stirner's notion of ownness in contrast to freedom, Newman's Post-Anarchist challenge to power at the ontological level, and the contemporary theory of Communization (I mostly take from Tropoloin, Tiqqun, and Culp Here). This communization is based on a combined social individuation and insurrection, as my Communism is not the establishment of a new system but the abolition of social mediation, wich I view as fundamentally alienating and limiting. This is all a basic overview and is further expanded upon in my writings.

Writings

My stuff can be found on substack. Current articles are listed here:

• Stirner's New Critics Part One: Introduction
• Stirner's New Critics Part Two: The Marxist Critiques of Stirner
• Stirner's New Critics Part Three: The Existentialist Critiques of Stirner
• Stirner's New Critics Part Four: The Post-Structuralist Critiques of Stirner
• Post-Anarchist Communism Part One: Introduction
• Self-Affirmationa and the Subject: Subjectivity Without Subjects
• Immanence and Transcendence: Reflections on The Plane of Immanence
• Post-Anarchist Communism Part Two: The Post-Anarchist Approach to Power
• Post-Anarchist Communism Part Three: The Process of Communization
• Beyond Baudrillard Part One: Introduction

Relations

• Weedman - Fellow contemporary anarchist, but I have a few disagreements. For one I disagree with the usefulness of the TAZ, primarily because it must fundamentally rely on capital for its own existence and cannot present an "outside". In fact through its existence capital now has a controlled alternative, preventing actual insurrectionary exit. Really while I'd agree that zones and the like will show up at any insurrectionary praxis, and they allow for temporary affirmative assertion, putting them on the basis of praxis is just self-defeating. I also disagree with your notion of the matrix, I find it misunderstands concepts like technocapital, spectacle, civilization, etc that you seek to put under a single label. I also of course disagree economically, as "mutual aid markets" really just become a petty bourgeoisie idealism and don't escape the cycle of capital. Rather I find that the only real insurrectionary exit comes in the form of communization.
• Felix - I'd largely agree with your characterization of anarchy on an ontological level with "an ungrounded ground of infinite potential" though we draw it from vastly different theorists. What confuses me is how you pair that with your traditionalism, along with your more structural formulation of politics and your rejection of postmodernism. To start with tradition you claim that that is the only way to resist the destructive process of capitalism, which is certainly commodifying and removing traditional ways of life. But the reaction to turn back to tradition to replace capital only replaces one alienating process with another, along with being entirely contrary to anarchy. You base your rejection of the postmodern on category theory, claiming it to go against the axiomatic process of set theory (modernity), and morphisms (postmodernity). However, while category theory is certainly a very interesting field of math, it cannot be placed as the basis of philosophy. You claim that it is based on simple logic rather than axioms, but this is itself based on a dominant image of thought and philosophical assumptions. Just as many Analytics (along with Badiou though he does this better) claim set theory as the basis for philosophy category theory falls to the same issue. I also would like to note that Deleuze and Guattari used category theory extensively in their later work, thought that might be interesting for you.
• Killer Kitty - Well this has certainly been an interesting turn. You've gone from a pretty standard liberal, with some unsavory tendencies, to the utter depths of reaction. You claim the superiority of the Brazilian nation and the black race, and that it should conquer all others. The racism here is of course very present, along with an irrational nationalism based on the sacred cause of the nation. The nation is not an entity that exists out there before we conceptualize it, neither is race for that matter. Instead, it is out of recognition of these concepts that it comes into existence. Why then follow this idol that we have placed there? Now there are material forces that function under this concept, the nation-state, that have their various weaponry and institutions. To embrace the state, to embrace the nation, to embrace this racism, etc is to alienate yourself and fall into reaction. Hopefully, this is just a phase.
• Bax - You confuse me somewhat as you start from Stirner (though your understanding of him seems to be faulty) and fall into the same sacred causes he came to detest. You justify this through your idea of the "collective ego" stating that since we all have "egos" and we all are self-interested we all should care for each other and become a collective. While certainly empathetic, it fundamentally misunderstands what Stirner means and just makes a logical leap without explaining it. This is just a blind collectivism, with a new sacred ideal being placed over me. Along with this the "ego" is a mistranslation of what Stirner means, it is rather the unique. Using this newfound sacred collective cause, you establish your nationalist and socialist politics. Nationalism seems to run counter to your "collective egoism", as it establishes an artificial division between one group of people and another (This comes up with your hatered of Bolivia). But if we are all to be altruistic, if it is our "ego", why prioritize one over the other? On your dictatorship and socialism it's just heaven storming, I see no real reason to support it. This national revolution just serves to further chain me.

Comments

• HelloThere314 Comment below. I will be deleting old comments