No edit summary |
|||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
|caption=Late afternoon drifting.. | |caption=Late afternoon drifting.. | ||
|alignments= | |alignments= | ||
{{Info/Communists}} | {{Info/Communists}}<br> | ||
|influences= | |influences= | ||
<tabber> | |||
|-|People= | |||
• [[File:Marx.png]] Karl Marx 📵<br> | |||
• [[File:Stirner.png]] Max Stirner 👓<br> | |||
• [[File:Camatte.png]] Jacques Camatte 🦗<br> | |||
• [[File:Fisher.png]] Mark Fisher 🎣<br> | |||
• [[File:Debord.png]] Guy Debord 🚬<br> | |||
• [[File:Ted Kaczynski.png]] Ted Kaczynski 📩 | |||
|-|Ideological Summary= | |||
• [[File:Anti-Humanism.png]] {{PHB|Anti-Humanism}}<br> | |||
• [[File:Arisoc.png]] [[Aristocracy]] (sorta)<br> | |||
• [[File:Egocom.png]] [[Ego-Communism|Egoist Communism]]<br> | |||
• [[File:Camatte.png]] [[Italian Left Communism|Left Communism]]<br> | |||
• [[File:Neomarx.png]] [[Neo-Marxism]]<br> | |||
• [[File:Situ.png]] [[Situationism]]<br> | |||
</tabber> | |||
|likes= | |likes= | ||
[[File:Debord.png]][[File:Fisher.png]][[File:Ted Kaczynski.png]] Reading Random Suicidal Writers<br> | [[File:Debord.png]][[File:Fisher.png]][[File:Ted Kaczynski.png]] Reading Random Suicidal Writers<br> | ||
| Line 49: | Line 59: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
Eleutherianism is a [[File:Commie.png]] [[Communism|communist]] "ideology" based on the beliefs of NewMaritimeVistula. Its kind of a whole load of yapping, but uhh if you're into that, feel free to be into it. | |||
== [[File:Debord.png]] A Suicidal Man, [[File:Fisher.png]] A Suicidal Man, et Marxism-Leninism [[File:ML.png]] == | == [[File:Debord.png]] A Suicidal Man, [[File:Fisher.png]] A Suicidal Man, et Marxism-Leninism [[File:ML.png]] == | ||
| Line 55: | Line 67: | ||
The concept of the spectacle can be drawn back to Marx's idea of commodity fetishism, as part of his social analysis of the capitalist mode of production. You probably already know this but commodity fetishism is that way in which the social relations within production appear as relations between commodities rather than between people, alienating labourer from their labour. Commodity fetishism obscures the social relations which produce the commodity, giving the commodities an appearingly independent, intrinsic value independent of the socially necessary labour time for their production. The spectacle is rampant and mad fetishism, fetishism to the extreme, whatever you may title it - it is commodity fetishism applied to an expanded idea of the commodity - social life is a commodity, experience is a commodity. The spectacle turns all aspects of our existence into something to be exchanged, or represented through imagery. In this fashion, the alienation of the worker from the product of their labor in capitalist society has evolved into the alienation of the individual from their own life under the society of the spectacle. Alienation has escaped the workplace.<br><br> | The concept of the spectacle can be drawn back to Marx's idea of commodity fetishism, as part of his social analysis of the capitalist mode of production. You probably already know this but commodity fetishism is that way in which the social relations within production appear as relations between commodities rather than between people, alienating labourer from their labour. Commodity fetishism obscures the social relations which produce the commodity, giving the commodities an appearingly independent, intrinsic value independent of the socially necessary labour time for their production. The spectacle is rampant and mad fetishism, fetishism to the extreme, whatever you may title it - it is commodity fetishism applied to an expanded idea of the commodity - social life is a commodity, experience is a commodity. The spectacle turns all aspects of our existence into something to be exchanged, or represented through imagery. In this fashion, the alienation of the worker from the product of their labor in capitalist society has evolved into the alienation of the individual from their own life under the society of the spectacle. Alienation has escaped the workplace.<br><br> | ||
Now then - Mark Fisher, my favorite suicide man, not to be confused with [[File:Debord.png]] the best cigarette-smoking suicide man (or [[File:Ted Kaczynski.png]] MK-Ultra and its consequences have been a disaster for mathematics). I believe this idea of a passive experience present within the situationist's theory can be tied to Fisher's theory of capitalist realism. They of course share initial connections as they are both critiques of capitalist domination over social life, but digging deeper is necessary. Fisher speaks of the ideologically pervasive frontier of capitalism, where capitalism presents itself as the only viable economic system, whilst the situationists speak of the society of the spectacle where capital holds domination over social life. Two separate but connected frontiers. We can say that through the spectacle, capitalism reinforces its own legitimacy (this capitalist realism) by shaping how people perceive reality (as with the case of the fetishism of commodities), making it appear as if the capitalist mode of production is not just dominant but natural and inevitable. (like how business is seen as natural and obvious through business ontology.) The spectacle is a sociocultural as well as an ideological structure which supports capitalist realism, upholding the capitalist mode of production, and turning us into mere passive observers of what could be our own life. Both capitalist realism and the spectacle are able to naturalise alienation to the herd. There is no more political imagination, we cannot free our desire, we have lost our future through the eternalisation of this miserable present. Lost futures are futures that could have been, but the society of the spectacle has crippled reality.<br><br> | Now then - Mark Fisher, my favorite suicide man, not to be confused with [[File:Debord.png]] the best cigarette-smoking suicide man (or [[File:Ted Kaczynski.png]] MK-Ultra and its consequences have been a disaster for mathematics). I believe this idea of a passive experience present within the situationist's theory can be tied to Fisher's theory of capitalist realism. They of course share initial connections as they are both critiques of capitalist domination over social life, but digging deeper is necessary. Fisher speaks of the ideologically pervasive frontier of capitalism, where capitalism presents itself as the only viable economic system, whilst the situationists speak of the society of the spectacle where capital holds domination over social life. Two separate but connected frontiers. We can say that through the spectacle, capitalism reinforces its own legitimacy (this capitalist realism) by shaping how people perceive reality (as with the case of the fetishism of commodities), making it appear as if the capitalist mode of production is not just dominant but natural and inevitable. (like how business is seen as natural and obvious through business ontology.) The spectacle is a sociocultural as well as an ideological structure which supports capitalist realism, upholding the capitalist mode of production, and turning us into mere passive observers of what could be our own life. Both capitalist realism and the spectacle are able to naturalise alienation to the herd. There is no more political imagination, we cannot free our desire, we have lost our future through the eternalisation of this miserable present. Lost futures are futures that could have been, but the society of the spectacle has crippled reality.<br><br> | ||
==[[File:Egophil.png]] Persons and [[File:Slavery.png]] Peoples== | |||
<p class="statement-paragraph">There truly are persons and peoples in this world, which forms a hierarchy - a currently non-existent, imaginary hierarchy, a hierarchy much more in imaginary dreams. The rule of the best is the rule of persons, not peoples. But what differentiates persons from peoples? Well, I've tried to make it as obvious as possible in the difference in the two words, but for the illiterate out there, yes I'm so kind, I shall give you a definition. Persons are those who assert their own identity, rejecting the agents of socialisation which threaten our realisation of the creative nothing, such as the family, social norms, education, etc. Peoples are those who follow herd mentality, and are governed by tradition, and morality. The transformation from people (singular) to person is the transcendence of this external governance - becoming The Unique. This transcendence is not only overcoming what is external but also overcoming yourself, rising above not only external weaknesses but the hindrances internal to you. The person creates their own values, values governed by the person. On the other hand, peoples's (horrendous, I know) did not create their own values and are governed by them. Peoples range across all political orders - from the oversocialised leftist to the ol' traditionalist. In an aristocratic sense, persons are superior to peoples, they are the selective best. Are there any persons under capitalist society? This is a question which is hard to answer, but I would say it is quite unlikely. Therefore, I believe that the destruction of the capitalist system through any means necessary is a necessary step for the relaisation of this hierarchy, and self-overcoming. Examples of capitalist society's incompatiability with this hierarchy is commodification, which is much like its own agent of socialisation, and therefore destructive to any form of transcendence.</p> | |||
{{#css: | |||
.statement-paragraph { | |||
max-width: 170ch !important; | |||
word-wrap: break-word !important; | |||
} | |||
}} | |||
==[[File:Yes.png]] Relations [[File:No.png]]== | ==[[File:Yes.png]] Relations [[File:No.png]]== | ||
Revision as of 22:08, 7 October 2024
Note: I am not a primitivist, nor an anarchist....like seriously bro 🌻
im also not a progressive or a "leftist", most of those people are honestly sickening
Me asf: (
/
/
)
Eleutherianism is a communist "ideology" based on the beliefs of NewMaritimeVistula. Its kind of a whole load of yapping, but uhh if you're into that, feel free to be into it.
A Suicidal Man, 
A Suicidal Man, et Marxism-Leninism 
This will be expanded and rephrased later. Not a fan of it.
The spectacle is a social relation mediated by images, and it is most notably alienation (estrangement) present within the capitalist mode of production in an advanced form. Let me reiterate; the spectacle must not be reduced to simply a collection of images or the general concept of media - the idea of the spectacle is rather social relations mediated by images. With this mediation, social life has been reduced. Reduced to continuous cycles of passive consumption, and passive observation, rather than active cosumption/observation we religiously worship capitalism for providing. Why is the spectacle an advanced form of alienation? It is because of its abstraction of social relations into representations which mediate lived experience, through the commodity; the production of goods for exchange rather than for consumption, which is eternally present throughout capitalist societies transforms social relations into alienated relations between things. Through the spectacle, not only labour is alienated - human interaction itself has too suffered this alienation at the terror of the commodity. So, in summary, I think we can best describe the society of the spectacle as a society in which all social relations are mediated through images and, of course, the commodity. The consequence of the society of the spectacle is the detachment of ourselves from our direct experiences, presenting us with a life of passivity. The spectacle is special in that sense that it doesn't just alienate labor, but alienates life itself. (Yes I know that was a lot of repetition, fuck you and whatever football team you support..)
The concept of the spectacle can be drawn back to Marx's idea of commodity fetishism, as part of his social analysis of the capitalist mode of production. You probably already know this but commodity fetishism is that way in which the social relations within production appear as relations between commodities rather than between people, alienating labourer from their labour. Commodity fetishism obscures the social relations which produce the commodity, giving the commodities an appearingly independent, intrinsic value independent of the socially necessary labour time for their production. The spectacle is rampant and mad fetishism, fetishism to the extreme, whatever you may title it - it is commodity fetishism applied to an expanded idea of the commodity - social life is a commodity, experience is a commodity. The spectacle turns all aspects of our existence into something to be exchanged, or represented through imagery. In this fashion, the alienation of the worker from the product of their labor in capitalist society has evolved into the alienation of the individual from their own life under the society of the spectacle. Alienation has escaped the workplace.
Now then - Mark Fisher, my favorite suicide man, not to be confused with 
the best cigarette-smoking suicide man (or 
MK-Ultra and its consequences have been a disaster for mathematics). I believe this idea of a passive experience present within the situationist's theory can be tied to Fisher's theory of capitalist realism. They of course share initial connections as they are both critiques of capitalist domination over social life, but digging deeper is necessary. Fisher speaks of the ideologically pervasive frontier of capitalism, where capitalism presents itself as the only viable economic system, whilst the situationists speak of the society of the spectacle where capital holds domination over social life. Two separate but connected frontiers. We can say that through the spectacle, capitalism reinforces its own legitimacy (this capitalist realism) by shaping how people perceive reality (as with the case of the fetishism of commodities), making it appear as if the capitalist mode of production is not just dominant but natural and inevitable. (like how business is seen as natural and obvious through business ontology.) The spectacle is a sociocultural as well as an ideological structure which supports capitalist realism, upholding the capitalist mode of production, and turning us into mere passive observers of what could be our own life. Both capitalist realism and the spectacle are able to naturalise alienation to the herd. There is no more political imagination, we cannot free our desire, we have lost our future through the eternalisation of this miserable present. Lost futures are futures that could have been, but the society of the spectacle has crippled reality.
Persons and 
Peoples
There truly are persons and peoples in this world, which forms a hierarchy - a currently non-existent, imaginary hierarchy, a hierarchy much more in imaginary dreams. The rule of the best is the rule of persons, not peoples. But what differentiates persons from peoples? Well, I've tried to make it as obvious as possible in the difference in the two words, but for the illiterate out there, yes I'm so kind, I shall give you a definition. Persons are those who assert their own identity, rejecting the agents of socialisation which threaten our realisation of the creative nothing, such as the family, social norms, education, etc. Peoples are those who follow herd mentality, and are governed by tradition, and morality. The transformation from people (singular) to person is the transcendence of this external governance - becoming The Unique. This transcendence is not only overcoming what is external but also overcoming yourself, rising above not only external weaknesses but the hindrances internal to you. The person creates their own values, values governed by the person. On the other hand, peoples's (horrendous, I know) did not create their own values and are governed by them. Peoples range across all political orders - from the oversocialised leftist to the ol' traditionalist. In an aristocratic sense, persons are superior to peoples, they are the selective best. Are there any persons under capitalist society? This is a question which is hard to answer, but I would say it is quite unlikely. Therefore, I believe that the destruction of the capitalist system through any means necessary is a necessary step for the relaisation of this hierarchy, and self-overcoming. Examples of capitalist society's incompatiability with this hierarchy is commodification, which is much like its own agent of socialisation, and therefore destructive to any form of transcendence.
Relations 
Eleutherianism (//)
Unconditional Accelerationism - I still have a very limited understanding of accelerationism, but from what I've seen a bit, you're here.
Marxism - It's complicated, but you're still mostly alright.
Stirnerism - The great egoist apostle writes! The Unique and its Property is an incredible book.
Middle
Anarcho-Primitivism - Whilst I understand your dissatisfaction with modern society, anarchism won't work and primitivism is not a viable solution.
Industrialism - That does not mean you're off the hook...
Kaczynskism - MK-Ultra made good things happen too...
No
Liberal Feminism - Rise to the top of the corporation! Fall 6 feet deep! The women's movement for the subjugation of ourselves! Lovely! Lovely! Fucking fools.
These Idiots - An ethnicity can't own land. Let us burn your sad little books until you feel suffering equivalent to the thousands of children.
Indigenism - An ethnicity still can't own land, it is so fucking stupid! Murder is bad so give the murderous natives their land back! Murderous natives or murderous Americans? I'll recognise the ones not worshipping leaves, the ones who actually have power, thank you very much. Let these silly movements die already... Just nationalism under a cloak!
Conservatism - No. I do not owe anything to my community. No, things should not slow down.
Progressivism - Progress is entirely relative, you're a false idea.
Neoliberalism - I think its obvious...
Dysgenic Supremacism - Reformist Marxism and its consequences...maybe 
these crazy people have the slightest point about the left. But yeah things like Indigenous Nationalism supported by the Western leftist are merely bits of dysgenicism.
Yatagarasism - Your analysis of the Japanese left is wonderful, it is much like, to all our dismay, the British left. Burnt to a crisp. The parties truly have rejected any form of revolutionary praxis, they have resorted to reformism, calling themselves Marxist despite the Utopian hellhole their reformist ideas crawl out of. We must start anew. Capital has indeed killed tradition. Your Japanese tradition is nothing more than a new movie for us all to consume, in this wonderful little consumerist world we live in, with all its nice bells and cookies. Nobility and honour have become capitalist values - the bourgeoisie, who previously played a role as revolutionaries, no, their loose little creature, their uncaged bird, capital, has forced upon us this poison. Let's do our best. (oh wait...that's a song isn't it... can't have shit in detroit...)Middle No
Boris Johnson - Long live the Borisreich!
Middle
Vladimir Lenin - It's...complicated.
No
Adolf Hitler - lol you fucking sucked, couldn't even get into art school, what a fucking skill issue, bro really thought jew control world hahahahah lmfaoooo
Reading List
note: i've read more than this i just can't be arsed to list it all so yeah
Capitalist Realism- Society of the Spectacle
- The Unique and its Property
The Wandering of Humanity- Against Domestication
Currently Reading
- Capital and Community
- The forms of value and the definition of capital
The Accursed Share...for the, like, 4th time...
Upcoming
Useful Shit
Communists Like Us- Workers & Capital
Dark Deleuze- Accelerationism and the Need for Speed
Barbaric Thoughts- Origin and Function of the Party Form
- The Democratic Mystification
The Social Contract
Revolt Against the Modern World
Critique of Pure Reason
The World As Will And Idea
On the Genealogy of Morality- Beyond Good and Evil
- The Antichrist
