Haven't had these in a while. Discussion about post left theory, illegalist praxis and insurrection.
Post Left / Insurrectionary Anarchism / Illegalism thread
Other urls found in this thread:
What does "post left" even fucking mean?
being fucking retarded
Post-leftism is cancer but Stirner is based. We need to reinterpret him through an explicitly leftist lens. Not some dumb anarcho-lifestylist bullshit.
Doing what's considered enjoyable, isn't enjoyable once you completely adapt to it like getting tired of heroin, so you start doing cocaine
meme buzzword that doesn't even mean anything. Also, shoplifting is illegalism and therefore revolutionary praxis
B-but illegalism is Stirnerian
nothing at all. they are massive pseuds in desperate denial about being liberals. this is what happens when you are theoretically illiterate and think the means of attaining a better world comes from choosing the right Build-Your-Own-Ideology assembly set off the grocery store shelves instead of struggle and construction
I didn't say it wasn't?
Do late capitalist subjects even desire a world without work? Most of us are already pretty overdosed on hedonistic enjoyment. Anti-work is misguided praxis.
Online piracy is illegalism and therefore highly revolutionary.
I'm sure some would want some kind of cushy work even if only to feel useful, and for something to do.
Some illegalism is cool (sabotage, piracy), but do you have a source for Stirner encouraging unnecessary, alienating bombings like some (stinky greek terror cells) think?
Excellent post at least in regards to the first world. Most of us want fair, stable, and genuinely constructive work, and to have an endless vacation of consumption we're obligated to enjoy is the true hellworld
I don't think that's a solution. Creating work just for the sake of it doesn't make people feel any better about themselves.
bruh I'm so left I'm off the scale hahahahahahaha
You're like a little baby…
very nice of the founder of postleftism to stop in to pay a visit!
the ego is just ones enjoyment
Stirner is a counterrevolutionary anticom
All attempts to enact rational laws about property have put out from the bay of love into a desolate sea of regulations. Even Socialism and Communism cannot be excepted from this. Everyone one is to be provided with adequate means, for which it is little to the point whether one socialistically finds them still in a personal property, or communistically draws them from a community of goods. The individual's mind in this remains the same; it remains a mind of dependence. The distributing board of equity lets me have only what the sense of equity, its loving care for all, prescribes. For me, the individual, there lies no less of a check in collective wealth than in that of individual others; neither that is mind, nor this: whether the wealth belongs to the collectivity, which confers part of it on me, or to individual possessors, is for me the same constraint, as I cannot decide about either of the two. One the Contrary, Communism, by the abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still more into dependence on another, viz., on the generality or collectivity; and, loudly as it always attacks the "State," what it intends is itself again a State, a status, a condition hindering my free movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts against the pressure I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity. Egoism takes another way to root out the non-possessing rabble. It does not say: Wait for what the board of equity will—bestow on you in the name of the collectivity (for such bestowal took place in "States" from the most ancient times, each receiving "according to his desert," and therefore according to the measure in which each was able to deserve it, to acquire it by service), but: Take hold, and take what you require! With this the war of all against all is declared. I alone decide what I will have.
The time [in which Jesus lived] was politically so agitated that, as is said in the gospels, people thought they could not accuse the founder of Christianity more successfully than if they arraigned him for 'political intrigue', and yet the same gospels report that he was precisely the one who took the least part in these political doings. But why was he not a revolutionary, not a demagogue, as the Jews would gladly have seen him? […] Because he expected no salvation from a change of conditions, and this whole business was indifferent to him. He was not a revolutionary, like Caesar, but an insurgent: not a state-overturner, but one who straightened himself up. […] [Jesus] was not carrying on any liberal or political fight against the established authorities, but wanted to walk his own way, untroubled about, and undisturbed by, these authorities. […] But, even though not a ringleader of popular mutiny, not a demagogue or revolutionary, he (and every one of the ancient Christians) was so much the more an insurgent who lifted himself above everything that seemed so sublime to the government and its opponents, and absolved himself from everything that they remained bound to […]; precisely because he put from him the upsetting of the established, he was its deadly enemy and real annihilator[.]
— Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, pp. 280–281
He's attacking naive communism, namely a communism which isn't based on egoistic interests but on unmediated collective labor.
The point I would make is that a standard of "deserving" social product can be established egoistically, as the democratic equilibrium reached from each asserting their egoistic interests. We should ensure that the communism we build is indeed such a system, and not a system that relies on some selfless conception of the common good.
It specifically refers to a couple of writer around AJODA, etc. and there writing. Not very good. Burger-Tier. Think Bob Black.
Actually pretty good stuff, don't let the Anons with a hate-on get you down.
I've only read ego and his own, is the ego "non-concept" in Stirners Critics? Also this post seems to suggest that someone dying poor and done didn't serve their self interest. You know egotism isn't a get out of jail free card from bad stuff happening
Hegel already made the same argument to BTFO Kant's categorical imperative and it's absolutely correct, so fuck off.
Crimethinc are not and were never, afaik 'post-left'.
How can you read this absolutely childish shit and say "wow this is actually breddy good!!!"
This might be true, but smashyism has never achieved anything either.
This what it must feel to be first world, when the only concern of "politics" is that they're soo boring I mean why aren't there any new memes yet??? We should be making politics FUN! Like, there's no one dying of hunger or political repression anyways, let's just say fuck it and have sex activism
I'm angry as fuck
The point is to revel in the struggle, not ignore it. To find fun in killing your enemies, helping your friends, and enduring hardship with others. This drive exists across revolutionary struggles, and would be lauded by dummies like you if only it came in the right packaging.
If I was a political commissar dedicated to the struggle for communism on the front lines of a shooty shooty bomby bomby, oh shit the poison gas is being dropped again time to put on the gas masks again situation I would shoot you in the head in the middle of the second sentence maybe feel bad about it for a moment then forget about you entirely
Can you tell me why I'd do this?
Stop. Right. There.
kek. this is why the anarchists will always lul at you.
Because the ultimate path of any communist is the path to peace.
It is right to revel in the struggle, knowing you are fighting for a future without it.
It is not right to find fun in the killing of the enemy nor the enduring of hardship with others else you seek enemies and hardship where none exists.
Or at least that's my take.
Can you tell me why I should care? The odds of you shooting me are small.
No, that thought experiment is just an extremely cringey way of avoiding the argument and a devolution into fantasy. Kys
It's not like it requires a galaxy brain to engage with eg.
That doesn't answer my question. I have no reason to care about your "thought experiment" (I don't think it's a thought experiment to just ask a question).
I don't care that you would kill me in a situation that will never occur. It's like if someone said "If I was superman, I would end capitalism!"
Like, cool. So? They'll never be Superman. And I'll never be arguing about post-leftism in a trench with a the commissar that you'll never be.
You see I see no issue with breaking the laws of the capitalist state in the process of committing or gearing up to commit revolution against it so I see no issue Illegalism as either revolutionary deed or Propaganda / Prop of the deed (Assasination etc) but I do dislike aimless violence for the sake of it
In this I feel distinction must be made
Asides from Stirner posting and the aforementioned Illegalism I've never gotten a solid explanation of what "Post-Left" Anarchist thought is
From what I know it's basically just egoism
While I myself am a Marxist and wouldn't describe myself as a "Egoist" or "Stirnerite" I do find Stirners works. In particular his decimation of Liberal / Capitalist concepts of Private Property Holman rights etc as very valuable when arguing with the emotional and appeals to the law / status quo made by reaction and liberals
You just like do what you fucking want dude. Fuck the cops ACAB.
"Post-left" anarchism is essentially anarchism that wishes to divorce itself from the classical left, while still adhering to many of the same principles. Mainly, post-left anarchists are concerned with the bad PR that comes with being associated with Marxists, and believes that such a divorce is necessary if anarchism is ever to have a rebirth. Bookchin pointed out that a lot of this movement was indeed not proper leftism, but just a wave of ultra-liberalism (such as ancapism) that had been conflated with anarchism from the very beginning, and criticized both marxists and anarchists for equally conflating statecraft and democracy - thus he believed that it was paramount that post-leftism was ejected from the leftist movement, but that it was made clear that post-leftism was either foolishness for trying to break traditional solidarity between revolutionary groups or, simply put, not anarchism.
This wasn't at all new to anarchist discourse pre bob black. These are conversations, debates, arguments, etc. that have been had for a very long time. I feel like 'Post-Left' as a label is a deliberate attempt to commodiify the type of anarchy that many of us love. Why is it that any eng discussion about anarchy and leftism is framed by Black and the small crew of people specifically, despite the many varying people and positions throught europe and beyond.
No one should ever work.
Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world. Almost any evil you’d care to name comes from working or from living in a world designed for work. In order to stop suffering, we have to stop working.
That doesn’t mean we have to stop doing things. It does mean creating a new way of life based on play; in other words, a ludic conviviality, commensality, and maybe even art. There is more to play than child’s play, as worthy as that is. I call for a collective adventure in generalized joy and freely interdependent exuberance. Play isn’t passive. Doubtless we all need a lot more time for sheer sloth and slack than we ever enjoy now, regardless of income or occupation, but once recovered from employment-induced exhaustion nearly all of us want to act. Oblomovism and Stakhanovism are two sides of the same debased coin.
The ludic life is totally incompatible with existing reality. So much the worse for “reality,” the gravity hole that sucks the vitality from the little in life that still distinguishes it from mere survival. Curiously — or maybe not — all the old ideologies are conservative because they believe in work. Some of them, like Marxism and most brands of anarchism, believe in work all the more fiercely because they believe in so little else.
what the hell is "illegalism"
bitch communists are already illegal
Basically, treating crime as a lifestyle. Y'know, shoplifting food so you don't have to pay money thus entrenching the capitalist system. MLs are quick to pull the trigger on 'lifestylism' but I think they're missing the point, I agree that crime in itself isn't going to bring down capitalism unless we have organization at some level, HOWEVER, there is literally nothing wrong with shoplifting/piracy from corporations.
IIRC in America, only the creation of communist parties are illegal, but calling yourself a communist in public isn't an arrestable offence I believe.
Did Marx associate himself with the left? Seems weird given the left in the French Rev was literally the Bourgs, then again Marx likes the Bourgs? in their time and place?
So is the left begun by Bourgs and then drifts off once the Bourgs become conservatives instead of radicals? Or what. Never really got the "Left" meme but maybe some choice Marx quotes would help me.
So yeah, did some research and "the left" doesn't appear in the manifesto or Das Kapital, and wikipedia says Left and Right were originally slurs.
So why do I need to identify as left to be the heir to Marx again?? In this context "post left" is a misnomer since we never really were left. That's just what our enemies called us. Being attached to the term left might be the most retarded thing I can imagine.
In there any socialist who has made an argument for why we should use it, or are we just parroting US media bc we're retards?
illegalism isn't revolutionary as it doesn't try to change any system, only encourages that people live outside it.
This is good praxis.
just checked and it's not sourced.
this isn't nearly as cleaver as you think it is.
post-left is a stupid term but not because "we never were left"
Which are worse the left deviationists or the right deviationists?
They are both equally bad
For no reason appraently since youve no argument. Tell me, why should i consider myself left just because enemies and idiots do?
Stalin confirmed for enlightened centrist.
"We need a balance of communism and capitalism." t. Stalin
are post-leftists pro-free-market? I don't understand what they want economically.
all anarchists are pro free market. however the market they envision takes different from per ideology
not an argument
given the lack of a state there is nothing stopping people from freely exchanging things
prove me wrong
ancap "theory" is completely detached from the way capitalism actually functions and has historically developed
you suffer from exchange fetishism, looking at the exchange of already produced goods in a complete vacuum, ignoring everything that predates this seemingly egalitarian and blank slate "exchange"
given the lack of the state there is nothing stopping people from expropiating every landlord and capitalist and sacking them
I didn't say anything about ancap theory. Free Markets are not exclusive to Anarcho capitalism
this does not contradict anything I said either.
It seems like you heard the term free market and started autisticly screeching
Nice ideology, did your econ teacher get it for you?