×
Create a new article
Write your page title here:
We currently have 2,525 articles on Polcompball Wiki. Type your article name above or click on one of the titles below and start writing!



Polcompball Wiki
Polcompball Wiki
2,525Articles
  Recent changes
in:
Self-Insert, Ideologies


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 is an "ideology".

Essentially, this is my attempt to combine post-structuralist and schizoanalytic study of signs and psychology with Marxism. Most of what you'll find here is critical notes on capitalism and how it has weaved itself into the structure of society, and how it suppresses the revolutionary tendencies of desire. I am influenced primarily in my writings by Baruch Spinoza, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels , Friedrich Nietzsche, Anton Pannekoek, Wilhelm Reich, Jacques Lacan, Paul Mattick, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari , Guy Debord, Mario Tronti, and Mark Fisher.

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

Beliefs

Philosophical and Political Beliefs

Notes on Modern Struggle and Spontaneity

The proletariat are not silent and passive players in their struggle, they do not sit back and only act in reaction to the actions of capital, not at all. On the contrary, they play a much heavier role as the slayers of capital and its bourgeois meat hooks, they are active participants indeed, and especially in such a condition of chaos and uncertainty. What do I mean by this?

A new development has taken place in the last century. The proletariat has developed a new and more potent form of its own vibrant subjectivity and spontaneity, one particularly threatening to our lord capital, it is a spontaneity that capital must crush. What is spontaneity? Spontaneity in this context represents the liberatory and chaotic potential of freed and nomadic desire, molecular desire specifically being produced which allows for such an escape to happen. Through the various forms of labor organization of the 19th and 20th century, the activated proletariat stood its ground against capital and its totality over society. It has been made clear by these proletarian struggles, their struggles to affirm themselves against capital, that the proletariat is an irreducibly autonomous force, one capable of standing up to the fiery dragons of the current order. However, the problem seems to be the production of revolutionary desire, in our society where conservative and reactionary molar libido reign supreme and crush the limited molecular.

Our post-modern world is a chaotic and even violent one. Every year, you here about violence and war here, an economic crisis here, nuclear threats here, the globe is in a tough position right now, it seems. Contrarily however, capital seems to be at its strongest. In the face of the forces of the nomads that want it dead, of anti-capitalist affirmation, capital is forced to either adapt or die. This is the logic behind the many shifts in social organization of society in the past century, from societies of discipline to control, from national to international. We can understand this better through Mario Tronti's analysis of the cycle of composition, the partial escapes from capital and the partial subjugating by capital. When the proletarian affirmed himself and escaped for a short while from the clutches of capital, capital could not destroy it completely, it could only counterattack by attempting to stratify the desires of the proletariat more and more through the further coding of social life, strangling spontaneity. It must do this in order to survive, it is in its self-interest to do such a thing out of pure necessity to. Capital therefore develops through this process increasing abilities to suppress the spontaneity of its slaves.

Such a force as the workingmen is directionless in the modern century, it has no push or drive. It has the anger, the bloodthirst, the passion and desire, to reign terror on the institutions which repress it, of course! However, it has nothing to unlock such passion and anger in its current state, it has only been able to do anything within the roadblocks and the confined territories that capital allows it to, and through only the means capital lets it. Spontaneity and the autonomy of such unconstrainted desire are therefore not allowed to be produced, and when it is produced, it is swiftly crushed by capital or coopted, to make it to where no war machine can develop from the proletariat. Molar desire is therefore allowed to reign over the dominion of libidinal investments, it is pro-conservative at its core when it exercises the unconscious drives for repression of desire. Spontaneity and molecular libido on the other hand, is inherently revolutionary. It is the embodiment of the destructive tendencies of desire. Spontaneity is the embodiment of the war machine, and specifically its chaotic and liberatory nature.

It is very clear that what is to be done is the freeing of the production of molecular desire in order to unlock the spontaneity and decoding nature of it. With this, we create a war machine out of the working class, a nomadic horde that actively engages in the undermining of capital and the state. It smashes and decodes the territory of the old, from the school to the factory to the hospital to the prison. It turns everyday life into a battle ground of change and difference, actor against actor, engaging in the true abolition of the current state of affairs. We therefore become the assassins of capital, challenging its dominance by our very affirmation of our spontaneity, our own affirmative passion and desire, we are our own liberators and the own drivers of our own revolution.

On the Postmodern Condition of Late Capitalism

Modernity is dead. Capital with its force killed its own grand creation. Historicism, radicalism, rebellion, all lay dead in the bloodbath of capital's own cultural self-destruction. "The end of history is here; communism is dead you fool!", shouts such proponents of this era. Postmodernity, its pessimistic blabber, has installed and codified itself into the hearts and minds of not just the proletariat but all of society. It may seem now that there is no alternative, the spontaneity of desire shattered by the cold winds of the nihilistic fervor of our new age. But what is postmodernity truly, how did come about, and how can we face it?

Modernity was defined by its historicism and optimism; its view in the future and progress, its rationalism, its flashiness, its idealization and romanticization of the liberal epoch. There was a certain ideal that modernity claimed to be for, whether the nation, the individual, etc. An abstract model of progress, of for example the Hegelian spirit of liberty or the Whig teleological line of the linear progress of history, defined the epoch of modernism. This also gave rise to the various historiographies that challenged such a view, Marxism among them. There was hope for both capital and communism through such notions. Postmodernity flipped all of this on its head, destroying the past historical narratives and the ability to historicize as a whole, ruthlessly critiquing such teleology. At the same time, it was engulfed into capital as it came to represent something more sinister, that of late capitalism and its cultural logic, the pessimism associated with it. This is made clear using Fredric Jameson's example of modernist vs postmodernist depictions of shoes. In Vincent van Gogh's "Peasant Shoes", we see the vibrant and meaningful colors that is given to the shoes. It's seen not just as a bought and sold commodity, but something bigger, something more meaningful. On the contrary, Andy Warhol's “Diamond Dust Shoes” shoes them in a much more nihilistic way. They're situated and shown as clearly just shoes, an exchanged commodity, and nothing else.

If we are to apply this to history, postmodernism acts as the vehicle for capital to secure itself through pure cynicism. Our desires have been stolen, there seems to be no alternative, "so why fight back?", the cynic of postmodern society cries. Slavoj Zizek in this regard correctly identifies cynicism as the dominant trend among society, the pessimistic spirit of it manifesting itself in what Mark Fisher labels as "capitalist realism". When Fukuyama declared the end of history after the death of what was seen as the #1 threat to the West, this pessimistic mindset of postmodernity about there being no alternative was entrenched. Ideological desire was territorialized into capital, anti-capitalist dreams being crushed and/or recuperated.

This prompted a crisis in communism about what to do now, in which many turned to the reformism that communists had ridiculed for over a century. This not only was a crisis in communist historiography however, but parody and in general historiography, as Jameson saw quite clearly. There is nothing linking modern society with the past, nothing to learn from, as the nihilism of postmodern historiography and sociology shows, ultimately being servile to capital in partaking in such divorcement, no matter how helpful and useful some of its critiques have and still are. Capitalist realism and this whole postmodern pessimism however are fragile at best, this being shown by the various recent events of this century and even this decade. What it needs however is a push.

The Libido and Political Economy

The Symbolic Commodity and Hyperreal Spectacles

The Origin of the Oedipal Family

Social Capital and Capitalist Stratification of Spontaneity

Biopolitics, Political Territories, and the Theory of the State

Postmodernity and the Societies of Control

Relations

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

Messtarded Tier

Gemerald

  • Glorified Communism () - Very cool guy with very cool beliefs, perhaps the closest to me in terms of philosophical and political matches. I have little to disagree with.
  • Kimno Thought () - Even with our political and philosophical break with each other (me embracing post-structuralism and spontaneity), you're still quite good in your foundation and in your beliefs, though obviously with typical classical Marxian limitations, alongside your humanism.
  • Venatrixism () - My student! Very much like the above, but less well-read.

Gem

  • Nurulisme () - Very good analysis of for example, capital as a deity, which I for the most part agree with, along with a few other things. My main problem though is how you cling on to psychoanalytic and Hegelian nonsense, which makes it very confusing when you claim to be a Deleuzian at the same time, but otherwise fine.

Dust

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 friend of mine, so there's that.

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

Retrieved from "https://pcbwiki.net/index.php?title=Post-Jefbolism&oldid=447002"