What brings me to make this post is what I see as an obvious problem of post-left anarchist discourse, it doesn't scale up. It's(for now) a niche discourse. As much as I hate large scale leviathan situated positions and politics I would still prefer some type of anarchist libertarian positionality that is VASTLY preferable to what exists right now.
You see right now broad based entry level anarchism and libertarianism are structured to either scientistic leftist progressivism or rightist traditionalism and neo-classical market ideology. To me to make the positional ideological world at least preferable there needs to be a broad based entry level discourse of anarchy and liberty that is structurally independent of both those discourses. The one position that I could see emerging that would fit the bill would be some kind of metamodernist radical centrism that is at least informed by the extreme post-left stuff.
I'm tired of seeing anarchism dragged down by two competing ideologies that simply do not result in any kind of anarchy in the long run. Many historical anarchists see the obvious non-starter that is neo-classical market ideology but they tend to have blind spots when it comes to #ScienceSupremacy progressivism. Anarchy needs to be structurally free of both of them.
if you can't even manage to get a single person to agree with you and follow along (in real life, not you as an anon or le way or calvin), how do you expect your idea to scale up?
and did they just use the term "radical centrist" in a neutral way? it's derogatory term ... for law-and-order liberals mostly.
I've seen it used in other ways beyond that to describe people who don't quite fit the political polarity check boxes. Some of these radical or extreme centrist tendencies might be of interest at least at the preliminary point.
first of all, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism
second of all, even wikipedia has a generous section of criticism.
you remember we're anarchists here, right?
we already "don't quite fit" in far more interesting ways.
I'm using it in the context of more recent discourse in regards to things like metamodern theory and positions that are in between the current warring ideologies and cultures.
right .. just making up your own stupid bullshit definitions, thereby defeating the purpose of discourse, which leaves only one other possibility. so once again, have to tell you i really don't appreciate you jerking off without asking consent from the rest of us in the room. doin the louie CK thing! please don't block the exit, i'd like to leave. LET ME OUT
MY ideas are marginal and niche and I like it that way. I do however still have an interest in the general idea space being preferable to more qualitative anarchist/anarch positions. For instance the entrenched polarity between the two warring camps(scientistic progs vs market trads) that I mention don't have good structural spaces for anarchism and anarchy in my view and continuing anarchism is a little too cozy with the former(at least be distinct and play against them both). I have however seen some interesting openings in certain metamodern discussion spaces(the stoa for example) I think there are openings for emergent ideas where the niche helps the not so niche and vice versa.
The point is there is the emergence of these new ideological egregores connected to metamodernism that could be of interest to anarchism when it comes to ideas reaching bigger numbers. I'd rather be around at the formative phase when the ideas are at their most interesting.
what's the german word for: thinking you are right about everything and literally everyone else is wrong about everything, yet having no proof or making any effort other than tweet-length assertions on the internet?
Where do I say this?
"an obvious problem of post-left anarchist discourse, it doesn't scale up."
"some type of anarchist libertarian positionality [...] is VASTLY preferable to what exists right now."
"right now broad based entry level anarchism and libertarianism are structured to either scientistic leftist progressivism or rightist traditionalism and neo-classical market ideology"
"to make the positional ideological world at least preferable there needs to be a broad based entry level discourse of anarchy and liberty that is structurally independent of both those discourses"
"The one position [...] that would fit the bill would be some kind of metamodernist radical centrism [...]"
"I'm [...] seeing anarchism dragged down by two competing ideologies that simply do not result in any kind of anarchy"
"Anarchy needs to be structurally [...]."
Is that me saying I am right about everything?
OK you believe your assertions are all wrong. Got it.
not really defending ziggy here, but that is some pathetically lame logic.
any statement/assertion made by anyone, is clearly what THEY think is right, unless they are either being funny or somehow strategic or ironic. it doesn't mean they think YOU think it is right.
that's why questions are USUALLY so much more useful than statements/assertions.
Your analysis is entirely false. You live in an unfiltered dream world where everyone says what they think and thinks only what is true. I can't believe it took you a week to come up with this non-defense nonsense. Ziggy is a petit bourgeois establishment liberal troll with edgelord desires. Nothing more nothing less. Hello, Ziggy.
Der Dunning-Kruger-Effekt
On the upward slope towards enlightenment!
When can we expect to get our hands on "Scientistic Progs vs Market Trads: MY Meta Niche Discourse of Anarch Ego Anarchyesq Ideological Egregores" by SirEinzige of Internet?
I will gladly pre-order and review it for AJODA.
I’m just asking as a way to grade your intelligence(which is not looking good) and sincerity for further discussion.
Yes. I know what an egregore is. Grade my intelligence, Sir. I await your analysis and response.
He will vanish for a while then appear ranting in another thread instead of following up on his assertions and boasting.
SirPredictableBehavior.
I'm basically proposing an idea in regards to new emerging and transforming discourses.
Tell me what it is and let me see if you know beyond doing a quick wiki search:)
A non-partisan neutral commenter here, from what I'm picking up from this thread, it seems to me that commenter lumpy is making groundless pokes at the Sir E commenter. I would call his attemps to derail the ideas of SE as advanced and sophisticated trolling made to look like critical analysis. Just my 2 cents. To me, this radical centrism is an enlightened radical populism which is an emerging global generational ethos.
A different, unaffiliated non-lumpy anon here, picking up on the fact that (1) not everyone who disagrees with SE is lumpy and (2) baseless assertions often require more than Le Way and some sock puppets to wank their way into intellectual legitimacy.
1. Make bold assertion without evidence or detailed thought.
2. Call out everyone who is doing it incorrectly (unlike 1)
3. Get defensive when asked to be more thorough.
4. Challenge them on A instead of being more thorough because you've reached the limits of your bold assertion in a post the length of a tweet.
5. Pray for a distraction.
6. Ruined orgasm!
7. Wait some days and make more assertions hoping everyone forgot about the previous one you can't defend.
Well you only have to look at Rojava to know that a Neo-Anarchist Libertarian movement is urgently required to replace the doddering Bookchin aligned anarcho- leftist varieties which ooze statist aspirations.
Do you know what any of those words you used actually mean? It seems unlikely. Also your response has nothing to do with the previous comment. Fail.
Another other commenter, just wondering how any suitable response could ever be made to these inverted false assertions>>
" 1. Make bold assertion without evidence or detailed thought.
2. Call out everyone who is doing it incorrectly (unlike 1)
3. Get defensive when asked to be more thorough.
4. Challenge them on A instead of being more thorough because you've reached the limits of your bold assertion in a post the length of a tweet.
5. Pray for a distraction.
6. Ruined orgasm!
7. Wait some days and make more assertions hoping everyone forgot about the previous one you can't defend. "
I'm liking more the idea of a radical centrist neo-anarchic movement.
Do you know what the word Strawman means beyond a quick wiki search? How about Cosmotheosophy? Tort law?
Who other than the managerial "experts" wanna grade people's inmtelligence? I also always am questioning their own intellectual quality...
1. "What brings me to make this post is what I see as an obvious problem of post-left anarchist discourse, it doesn't scale up."
THESIS
2. "It's(for now) a niche discourse".
ANTITHESIS
3. "As much as I hate large scale leviathan situated positions and politics I would still prefer some type of anarchist libertarian positionality that is VASTLY preferable to what exists right now."
S Y N T H E S I S !!!
Take that, LEVIATHANARCUCKS! LordEinzige didn't even need to use EGREGORE in his based thesis but defeated you with it's girth anyway!
What I'm essentially saying is that anarchism(not just the post-left variant) is essentially an minority adjacent discourse. The Q I'm asking is what do anarchists(particularly post leftists) want to be adjacent to?
Right now it is and has been, historically, leftism. Is that a good idea going forward especially considering that leftism got worse not better in the 20th century due to things like the rise of corporatism scientism as well as Marxism being a more influential minority radical position then anarchism.
Should anarchism/anarchy have a default adjacent relationship with leftism or should we keep our options open to things like certain extreme and interesting centrist tendencies or even certain right wing ones as well as leftist ones that have more of a 19th century structure. What would an anarchist/anarchy postionality look like that thoroughly rejected all identitarianism left and right. Right now when someone becomes an anarchist there is a structural baseline that they tend to gravitate towards initially(Chomsky, progressivism, left-identitarian adjacent 'allyship' ect). These are structures that I would like to see challenged and changed for an idea that deserves better theory and practice.
We our in a realignment period folks. When the realignment is done this will set political and positional discourse up for the rest of the 21st century. The last time this happened heading into WW2 the results weren't so good for the big @. It's time to start talking about this stuff now and what agents of anarchy do going forward that is best for bringing more anarchy into the world.
So what you're saying is that you haven't read Jason McQuinn. Got it.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/jason-mcquinn
Not everything but the basic prime reading. What does he have to do with my points.
Are you really asking what do Jason’s writings have to do with you inane assertions regarding post-left anarchy?
I'm honestly curious as I have no idea what he has to do with my points. I've been reading McQuinn since 03 when he went after people like Peter Staudenmaier in AJODA. I consider the AJODA stuff to be partly foundational to my thinking. So go on explain. I'll be it's the usual miscomprehensions of my points.
Yoir assertions regarding the post-left are based on a failed understanding of the ideas, many which are plainly in Jason’s numerous texts. If you think this is a miscomprehension (sic) of your assertions then perhaps a clarification to prevent misreading is on order. Unless of course you are only writing for your own benefit and your other numerous sock puppet accounts, although this would not accomplish the Leviathanic herd you seem to require. I recommend you revisit the post-left authors you are incorrectly critiquing. You even have the link.
In regards to McQuinn, you do know he's not the sole inventor of the tendency right? He's one of the founders the others being Black(probably the most important) and Landstreicher(probably my favorite of the bunch). I've read numerous texts from them along with those who's ideas are adjacent such as Bey.
What does this have to do with my ideas for discursive strategy. You do know that's what I'm talking about right. I'm trying to make the anarchist landscape MORE post-leftist while asking Qs about what type of outside discourse might be useful as far as co-influence goes.
What the fuck are you talking about when it comes to Leviathanic herd? What in the hell makes you think that that's what I'm going for???
THESIS: thE OBViOUs ProbLEm oF pOst-LEFt AnARChISt DISCOurSe, it dOESN't scAlE Up!
ANTITHESIS: aNaRCHisTs neED MeTaMoDerNIst rADIcaL CENTRiSm InForMEd bY ThE exTREmE posT-LeFT sTUff!
SYNTHESIS: daily, hands-free SirEinzigasm
Sometimes one has to stop and think about the 19th and 20th Centuries as bygone modern eras which have no relevance to the world today. Progress and growth of communism and capitalism as rival competitive partners is a failed race, to the moon or not, it no longer has meaning to the more urgent concern, the survival of the whole planet. Elon Musk and the kings of corporate totalitarianism still cling to the notion of mass techno-machinology continuing on an energy-greedy path towards elitism, and has fused together aspects of both leftist management and right-conservative corporate marketing, which has pushed its opponents into the only available option to empower and enable an alternative path out of environmental and social fragmentation, which is the radical centrist position.
What is this typical Western exceptionalist, not radical, not anarchist, definitely centrist petit bourgeois boringness doing on our beloved anarchistnews?
Anarchism is like music dude, like remember when there was punk, metal, pop, techno, emo, rap, folk, grunge etc.
Now there is emo rap, rap punk, folk grunge, technorock, pop metal. Politics is homogenized now dude!
"Politics is homogenized now dude!"
Huh? Sure, like there are capitalist-communists. That's like an oxymoronic thingy!
China is a capitalist/communist politic duh! That's why pre-21st Century political movements are not accurately described by any policy or agenda because all of them are about consolidating
power over populations. Anarchism is only about returning this power back to the people in equal infinitesimal amounts, and if a radical centrist methodology can make this closer to fruition, then let it be.
Radical centrism is neither left nor right nor liberal, but having equal individual power, which is available now for those with radical imagination.
And they will say, "Oh thank you mighty radical centrists for returning power back to we lowly populations! You grace us with your wisdom and might not unlike a vanguard but similar to a vanguard. A centrist vanguard of power returners!"
Stop trying to make 'RadICal CeNtRisT' happen! It's NOT going to happen!
the newer rebranding for what is just hardcore neoliberalism (and its view of democratic management).
Also the claim that "pre-21st Century political movements are not accurately described by any policy or agenda" ain't just contrived in some super-arbitrary way, but also just plain wrong, as their agency and policies are the main aspects that made people criticize them (for instance, post-war socialist regimes, especially the Soviet).
I really don't see the ground for such weird statement that sounds shallow, so feel free to elaborate.
Ok then, I'll make this as simple as I can so that you can comprehend in the physical outcome of what both capitalist and communist agendas and policies are primarily concerned with. It is to get the whole population enslaved to work and paying taxes to a ruling elite.
Work for the state or corporation is the diversion of the individual's physical energy away from their own desires. Radical centrism would have the physical energy being used by people for their own creative purposes. No taxation, no rent, free food would bankrupt and extinguish the state.
You have to grok this, you cannot make any sense of this if you are a materialist pedant with an organizational mindset!
... so what you're saying is, to each according to their need! looks like you reinvented socialism with the full luxury utopian communism spice! but like ... more naive so that's pretty embarassing!
worse, you don't seem to understand how the state is just a big gang of murderers who take power and resources by force ... which is why you can't "extinguish" them by some appeal to how free shit would improve life for most people, which is obviously true but not really the point because again ... the aforementioned gang of murderers
“Thought and consciousness,” says Engels (and his buddy Lenin) , “are products of the human brain”
Or policy and agenda are products of the human brain. This justification for the reification of any ideology of an elite group, communists or capitalists, is not "policy or agenda" but rather, a " tactic of enslavement " , and it is this "tactic " that radical centrism can begin to change.
The " Tactic of Enslavement " is propaganda.
Etymology of this term is,
The term started to gain currency in 1622, when a new branch of the Catholic Church was created, called the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for Propagating the Faith), or informally simply Propaganda. Its activity consisted in a group of cardinals pitching Catholicism in non Catholic countries.
From the 1790s, the term began being used also for propaganda in secular activities. The term began taking a pejorative connotation in mid 19th century, when it was appropriated from religion to the political sphere. Its political use became particularly significant during World War I.
Explain what you mean by scientistic leftist progressivism
Add new comment