 |
Self Insert "People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism This page is meant to represent LordCompost's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission. |
‟Through the heaven of civilization, the human being seeks to isolate himself from the world, to break its hostile power.”
– The Unique and Its Property,Max Stirner
Howdy, I'm 
LordCompost.
I am an 
Egoist, 
Pragmatist, 
Post-Civilisationist, 
Iconoclast, and 
Anti-Humanist.
I am influenced by a variety of schools, most notably by 
Post-Analytic Philosophy, 
Psychoanalysis, German 
Idealism & 
Romanticism, 
Political Nihilism, and by various 
Post-Structuralist thinkers.
Unlike what my influences describe, my thought is grounded not in Political Nihilism nor 
Egoist/Individualist Anarchism, but rather in a very broad 
philosophically anarchist interpretation of 
anti-civilization and post-civilization philosophy; seeing the subjects relation to the state as just another of the same phenomenon which underpins modern civilisation. I see 
civilisation, 
the state, 
capitalism, 
traditions, or any other 
contingent historical phenomenon, etc., as neither desirable nor regrettable; they are simply existent, and our relation to such phenomena underpins societal ills.
I see civilisation, capital, culture, ideology, etc., as part of a domesticating process through which individuals find themselves under subjectification. However, this does not create oppression by itself but rather leads to opportunities, social relations, and the possibility of fixity and ideological domination. My response to such domestication is simply the constant renegotiation of 
individuals, 
institutions, 
societies, etc., to themselves and their values through the questioning and revision of values as a form of decadence and pragmatism.
My Icons: (//
//
)
Summary
See my Philosophy page.
Thoughts
Civics Overview
The state can only ultimately be justified, or made legitimate, by individuals voluntarily 'opting' into and consenting to it. This is to say that an 
'association of individuals' who are interested in such a venture form such an institution. However, it is not so simple. The state would then simply be defined as a voluntary association of individuals. While no such state has ever existed, it is useful here to merely explore a thought experiment to see if such a vision is really "ideal". The state should be properly defined as a relation of 'citizens' or subjects to an institution, which always asks that individuals serve its interests, as opposed to a relation of individuals to each other.
Thus, neither 
security nor 
totality can ground the state, particularly because in either case, the state is paternalistic and opposed to the interests of its subjects. And would perhaps lead to revolt without the aid of ideology, but obviously, history shows otherwise. It is simply that the security state, more often than not, promotes violence, oppression, and division. While the universal state openly promotes exclusion and division. Such conceptions are ultimately relied upon because a state grounded in voluntary associations is "easily" disbanded.
In saying that, such a state would be impossible even if, in principle, it could exist. Thereby, an association that is 
unanimous and directly consensual through each individual would in principle be a justifiable state, allowing, of course, for 
individual succession and the elimination of 
manufactured consent or 
ideology. But again, such a state would be impossible and certainly extremely limited in application.
Not only this, but it is historically impossible. Individuals are not 
autonomous, 
essentialistic, and atomistic beings. Thus, individuals are already born into a social environment with its own norms, culture, values, institutions, etc. Therefore, no individual is free from social determinism and cannot fully consent without influence. Even an ideal and fully justified state is ultimately grounded in a pre-existing social environment. A similar argument also works against 
free-market capitalism in that, while yes the state is opposed to voluntary and consensual contracts, the market already exists and forces certain contracts.[2]
However, while it is true that 
several philosophers have argued that a state grounded in individual choice and succession will ultimately undermine the state and lead to its destruction, I do not entertain the thought that the state will ever 
wither away.[3] Even a 
non-constitutional, 
unanimous direct democratic, 
republican state that autonomously and freely legislates according to a 
consensual popular collective will, would never 
perfect the population, nor 
make itself superfluous. It would remain stuck within 
politics itself and never be able to transcend this discourse.
Finally, such a state, even if it existed, would require only those individuals who were 'interested' in such a state and its decisions; as soon as it no longer served their interests, they would succeed from the state and return to a 'state of nature' or an atomistic civil society; or more correctly, just a different social relation. Then, we would have individuals not under the authority of the state; it would "clearly" be short, nasty, and brutish (only if one accepted the Hobbesian story). This obviously paves the way for the need for a security state or a universalist state that has its subjects 'best interests' in mind, one that benefits 
citizens, or 
'humans' or 
workers, etc. I think the modern state produces a worse environment for individuals, producing its own violence.
Thus, yes, an "ideal" state is non-constitutional, unanimous direct democratic, and republican; a state which allows individuals to freely transform values, laws, and institutions for their own purposes. Again, this is a definition that overly relies on reducing the state to a mere voluntary association; in reality, the state is so much more than that and would defeat the purpose. But, seeing as this state will never exist, simply because it cannot, I opt for a conception of philosophical anarchism in which without such direct, free and informed consent, there can be no obligation of individuals towards the state; either they freely choose to obligate themselves, or there is no obligation.
While I do not think that any individual has an 
obligation towards the state, I do not see it as evil inherently, and I certainly do not entertain its 
abolition as a cause worth pursuing; instead it would so much more fruitful to focus on your individual insurrection and deny the state when it intervenes in your life. Whether you do or do not is up to you. However, even this position is entirely name only and relates to much more than just the state, including social relations, 
the economy, norms, 
religion, etc.
Forms of the State
An expansion of the previous section on the three forms of state; the 'security state', the 'totality state', and the 'voluntary or popular state'. And while it is anachronistic and extremely idealist/essentialist to limit every historical and even every possible state to these three definitions, it is actually worse, with the security state being only a particular form of the other two states.
However, it will be necessary to begin with it to delineate the other two. The 'security state' is obviously linked with the Hobbesian 'Leviathan', or perhaps the Kantian 'Public Right' - in either case, it is simply that 
'rights' exist prior to the state, but that they can only be secured, guaranteed, enforced, etc., through a powerful entity that exists above the subjects which either arbitrates according 
to its own will, or 
established positive law.
Additionally, such a state in both the Hobbesian and Kantian fashion operates according to a prior obedience given to the sovereign. Thus, they are forms of "voluntary" states; only if one accepts escaping the state of nature in these philosophers' pictures is "voluntary". Otherwise, a state that merely operates through 
power and not authority.[4] The latter state operates through either a total or universal conception of its subjects (the 'totality state') or merely through being the 
defacto power and justifying itself on this principle.
Either form, both voluntary or not, operates on the assumption that individuals, whether in the state of nature or not, are antagonistic, violent, self-interested (or at least do not share universal interests), and overall opposed to cooperation. This is simply because the security state is necessary for security, that is arbitrating between oppositional individuals. This is simply to say that it must solve disputes which go against the interests of its subjects, or at least in the case of the voluntary or totality state, some of their interests. This is because if their interests aligned with the state and other subjects, there would be no need for such security; the state would merely function in a 
bureaucratic sense.
Moreover, this conception also assumes that the state is 'not' entirely aligned with the interests of individuals but that it is necessary; either for the 
individuals own good or for the [[File:Social.png continuing function of society. Thus, individuals, even as voluntary 'citizens' or subjects, only accept such a state on the basis of their citizenship, while a 'part' of them may also desire to break or bend the rules when it interests them, and it is the role of the state to keep this in check. It also prevents 
criminals and other 
'undesirables' who do not accept the state from interfering with "accepting" citizens.
Ultimately, this form of state fails to be completely aligned with the interests of its subjects and may result in rebellion; obviously, for both Hobbes and Kant, the state is above the subjects and can rightfully quell such a rebellion. This is because the authority vested in the sovereign is granted 'within' the institution of the state. Thus also the 'right' to rebel is impossible without the state enforcing it - this creates a contradiction. Still, the people, if they are powerful enough, can overthrow the state; they just cannot be 'in the right'. Lastly, on this state, it should again be noted that 'security' is reliant on individuals being violent and antagonistic, which has been argued is produced by states; additionally, most authoritarian states produce their own violence, oppression, and inequality.
W.I.P
Writings
Links to my Substack.
On Decline in Relation to Decadence
The Cultural Industrial Complex
Relations
CarrotsRppl2
How is 'The State and Its Property' illegitimate? If you truly held to the principle that property is individual protection, then isn't the state currently the most powerful entity that protects its property? As such, according to you, it is your perfect society already.
Bourgeoisie Destroyer
I am sure you have read something, but merely returning and subscribing to 'ancient' philosophy does not make one intelligent, nor does it advance any knowledge or let one overcome modern problems simply because thought has developed and overcome older philosophy.
Killer Kitty
Question: If politics was a net negative on your country would you overcome it and bring politics into its nullity? Or would you hold close to it and always remain bound to your highest truth? 'No,' you would say, 'politics cannot be done away with; it is necessary, it is fundamental, it is more important than us.' Liberalism, Fascism? Politics...
Kosciuszkovagr
No writings...
Xx godisfaithful xx
Your similarity to postmodern/post-anarchism with your rejection of an 'Arche' or grounding principle is fascinating. This is why I am surprised you disagree with postmodernism so much. However, in your thought, I find the assurance of human rights to be the primary ground of politics; it seems to be a slight contradiction?
HysteriaThought
It is quite strange that through all your insights and some I agree with quite earnestly, post-rationalism is a particular favourite; one then runs into your quite tame and sacred economics. Economic freedom is the same as 'religious freedom' - not freedom from the economy, but the freedom of the economy.
Anthony Bax
I am still yet to understand the existence of altruistic egoism. Where does Stirner oppose altruism? When egoists are social, supportive, associative, etc., why does this entail the conclusion that sharing is a moral ought, and that collectivisation is a sacred duty? It is alien to my will, something that can always be separated from the social ego.
StockMarketCrash
I appreciate the critique of capitalism; I, too, agree that it is a stifle of individuality and creativity. However, I do not support socialism for the same reasons. Additionally, anarchy, even as expression or lifestyle, is still a mode for me to exist within; why can I not act freely and have a me-ism? Why label it and put rules on what I can and can't do; if I idly protested and violently resisted at other times, shall I be shunned as false to the cause?
Borker
Who is the nation existing for? If it is for the nation, then it can do its own work to benefit itself; if it is for the people of that nation, then why are we supporting the nation and not the people? Additionally, if it is voluntary whether people identify with that nation, then it can hardly be said to be a universal shared value. If individuals stop identifying, they can hardly be said to oppose the nation's interests because they no longer accept the nation itself.
Weedium
You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Also, please try to improve your writing skills.
Rocksmanylobsters
A collection is not synonymous with collectivism; one is the aggregate of individuals, or merely a multitude of them more so than a total, while the other remains an organisational principle of interests that relate individuals to a supposed shared value. In reality, individuals are connected into a 'collective' through a web of values. Ultimately, if any individual no longer valued what others valued, would you side with the individual or the multitude?
Weedman
Quite unaware of nuance. Additionally, your thought is entirely devoid of a conception of 'self-domination'; that is, internal forms of domination. Apparently, only external or 'repressive state apparatuses' exist for you. While it is true that these are effective and certainly malicious, it is the internal or ideological forms of domination that you ignore or even promote, such as spirituality or 'innate' value in nature (which, of course, is only an internal and subjective valuation that is supposed to 'torment' individuals when they cross it). I certainly do not wish my life to be defined by abstract concepts such as soul or nature.
Meadowsin
As I said in the comments on the insurrectionary communism page, I am yet to understand the necessity of communism, nor the denial of the proletariat for insurrection. If one wanted to constantly head to the 'what-can-be,' or in your and Stirner's words, the 'ideal,' something which, once it is here, is no longer ideal but real, and thus static, then why is the language (and theory) of the 'old-guard' still in power? Clearly, much like static fixity, reaction allows the revolution to realise itself by allowing individuals to become fully conscious of what the revolution stood for; it is a necessary step, but it is not the last step.
SkeletonJanitor
The obvious point of contention is simply that your picture of the state, economy, and even social relations is paternalistic in the traditional sense of the term. You believe, and not without justification, that the state (and not even you specifically) knows what is best for its subjects; it treats itself as the 'father'; it is paternal. Obviously, if it goes against the current grain, it is not necessary that it opposes individual interests, but it is difficult to tell without some community mechanism.
Pantheon
Now, you correctly surmise that automation and the abolition of labour in the economy are currently unsuitable simply because, well, beating on a dead horse, we produce more than we need and yet labour more than ever. We have more automation and efficiency, but we have less leisure time. Of course, people are scared about losing their jobs because we certainly do not have structures in place that will allow these people to live without labour. And yet, why is your system of economics required if the solution to your conundrum is just communism?
NeoxTheMonarchic
I have very little to go off, as I prefer not to judge an individual's ideology merely by influences. Thus, there are only a few sections that I can judge: Economics, Markets, Immigration, Conservatism, and Gender. Economics is by-the-by; it is just that, well, any market favours the accumulation of wealth, not just free ones. You then also support 'free market' socialism, so is it capitalism or free markets that lead to large corporations? The rest is just conservative/reactionary scare words intended to win merely by sophistic refutation (Ad Hominem).
Notes
- ↑ In my opinion, consensus democracy, or a complete collective will, can only function with the addition of individual succession and in limited circumstances.
- ↑ Obviously, the choice between labour or death is the no choice at all. It has been said that one has a choice of jobs, but so too does the anarcho-capitalist have a choice of states...
- ↑ Succession here is defined in a multitude of ways, including the possibility of insurrection, revolution, decadence, destruction, exodus, crime, counter-economics, rejection of work, values, etc., - Basically anything that refuses to participate in the social environment that produced the state.
- ↑ Here defined as the "the right to command, and correlatively, the right to be obeyed. It must be distinguished from power, which is the ability to compel compliance, either through the use or the threat of force."
Robert Paul Wolff.
Comments
LordCompost - Please comment here if you have questions.
- Meadowsin's Basilisk - One of the quotes I used for my new section about the work "The Communism of Love" by Richard Gilman-Opalsky should sort of demonstrate why I maintain "communism/communization" rather than removing the ideal of communism entirely. Additionally, I feel like there's the simple reasoning that a lot of the thinkers that this originated from were communist or otherwise identified with movements that considered themselves "communist." While these movements do not define the contemporary state of communism, as Insurrectionary Communism attempts to display, they still exist as our sort of "pseudo-ideological forefathers," even if they do not exactly reflect our ideals in the present sense.
LordCompost - Sure, but the case of Richard Gilman-Opalsky's opinion on communism is another new definition that seeks to side-step the actual principles of communism. No thought is finished and done when compared to its 'enemy'; certainly not liberalism. Additionally, the issue of negating the present state of things, or in their words - "what needs to be confronted and abolished in the present time" - is once again one of my contentions with communism; see 
On the Issue of Negation. The liberal voter obviously wants to confront and abolish the present state of things; they clearly want a better future, etc. Just as many thinkers in other ideologies share similarities, and certainly, many thinkers within communism and its history would oppose these views. It is all well and good to redefine communism, and as I said, liberalism has certainly done so, but that doesn't solve the issue that liberalism is liberalism, and communism is communism.
- Meadowsin's Basilisk - I mean, in nature, when I really look at things, I am nothing like any other form of communist, or many other people who have ever called themselves communist. I believe the only relations that need retaining in a post-insurrectionary world are few and far between, things such as love that with define themselves purely by communitarian or evidential means. I do not believe that any semblance of the state or basic ideals of utopian workerism should hold, I am in this way not a "Marxist"; but I contend, deeply I contend, that in the nature of my potentially communitarian ideal, one which thrives in excess and in basic prosperity, one which finds play and a destructive-creation its primary functions -- that I should very well call myself a communist. While I do wish to read Stirner, and do wish to read all I can, I don't see myself shying away from the language of communism. I am not a Marxist, but I find myself to be a distillation situated beyond the bounds of Marx, or the ideals of the foredays "communist."
- LordCompost - Well, we disagree on whether there is such a 'post-insurrectionary world,' I would find it necessary to continue my insurrection in any system, ideal or otherwise. Why is love communitarian? Why is it a general love expressed for all my 'fellow' subjects and not a free love that expresses itself in my actual embodied relations, my empathy to those I know and actually care for? Again, it would be necessary to delineate that Marxism (in most forms) is oppositional to the state, at least as it defines it, and it certainly is not 'workerist' in a syndicalist sense, but I take the concession. While it is all well and good to hold an 'ideal,' one which, as I said previously, can only become the fixed 'real,' I do not see myself valuing the 'community' or communitarian ideal - I do see myself valuing others, not the relation that it forms; the association itself is not to be valued, but rather the associates. One certainly doesn't need to read to be opinionated, nor does one need to read Stirner merely to appease me or to have a correct opinion.