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 realization 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.
Thinking about the Party 
Will the Party lead to Class Consciousness?
What I'm concerned about with the party is this question - it's really important of course. Fisher's idea of capitalist realism highlights the inability of the people to imagine a viable alternative to capitalism; this idea that capitalism is the ONLY viable system. To me, this theory (along with some others, which I will talk about later) brings into question the party's effectiveness in manufacturing class consciousness. Our ability to see freedom and oppression have been, in a way, inverted. Under neoliberal capitalism, alongside capitalist realism, we see capitalism associated with freedom, and opportunity. Capitalism has become the ultimate expression of personal freedom. The market has become the ultimate expression of competition and quality. Business has become the ultimate expression of production. You get me. False consciousness has allowed consumer choice (not choice, but CONSUMER choice) and enterprise to turn participation in the capitalist system - this, well, institution - into an expression of personal freedom. It has standardised the idea of self-realisation into employment. Our lives revolve around capitalism. But everyone to ever breathe has said this already, so where the fuck am I going with this? Well because freedom has become synonymous with the participation in the capitalist economy as a consumer, oppression is inversely anything which restricts this. The vanguard party, partly due to its centralised structure (though even the lack of this may result in the same problem), would, in my opinion, be interpreted by the common man as against freedom, as not emancipatory, but tyrannous and restrictive, as it would threaten our false sense of freedom, our boxed, capitalist freedom - consumer choice and enterprise. The party would need to destroy this hyperreality we find ourselves subject to, but there are so many signs pointing to freedom under capitalism, that I question the viability of such a thing. Fisher's capitalist realism complements this quite well: if the people themselves are unable to even imagine an alternative to capitalism, how can the party make any kind of case, a case needed to tear away at false consciousness, without being seen in a repressive manner?
I mean, you know it, I know it, neoliberal capitalism has placed a tremendous emphasis on individualism - it is false individualism, but under the hyperreality, it is true indivudalism. The truth is not always the truth, and thats sad, but its the truth (...or is it?) This has caused a large distrust of institutions - just look at the popularity of populist parties, just look at how conspiracy theories are PREFERRED over real things, because people WANT to be different from what they have been taught. This shall continue on to the vanguard party, which the consumer will see as against their autonomy. Capitalist realism has conditioned us, conditioned you, conditioned me, no matter how "real, epic communist" you declare yourself, to see revolutionary institutions as oppressive, whilst maintaining its hidden institutions. The vanguard party would struggle to show itself as any kind of alternative as long as it struggles to show itself as liberatory.
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
