Add new comment

It is not enough to simply condemn, but to find out why things keep happening over and over again. In other words, what constitutes the repression of leftist politics? Is there no problem with anarchism itself? A critique of the critique must be introduced here.
To keep it as brief as possible, I start with Nietzsche. The central element that constitutes leftist politics is a psychology of resentment, which comes from the quest for the supreme goodness of God. Nietzsche had no problem saying that it is a slave morality. One chooses obedience in order to pursue truth; one allows oneself to occupy the position of master in order to resist tyranny; one forms wars in order to confront one's enemies; one can use any means in order to conform to a sense of purposefulness. This purposefulness makes all STRENGTH homogeneous.
God becomes the guarantee of doing anything, because it is purposeful. And the homogeneity of STRENGTH is the means of excluding dissent. Thus, we say that a fighting Christianity constitutes the core of leftist politics. The left co-ordinates and manages Servility in order to form camps of confrontation.
Second, the development of industrialization provided the left with the scientific method. As Trotsky envisioned, labor had to be organized in a militarized manner. This was to integrate Servility, just as soldiers in the army were planned for group confrontation.
This is what Clausewitz saw as war, which is a continuation of politics. On the one hand, the left believes that the development of capitalism inevitably leads to total war; on the other hand, the left organizes society in the same way in order to create confrontation. Yet total war reversed Clausewitz, because war turned itself into unlimited. Until the atomic bomb ensured that the political camps could destroy each other at any time. Ultimately, it led to our present world order - a post-fascist order that came back in a political way and presented itself as "peace". But fundamentally, it is a continuation of unrestricted war.
The use and development of computers and the Internet have also brought new incentives to the left. It became a precursor to the control of society that began in 1968. Totalization was used against totalization, and the convenience of technology was used to pursue a certain kind of artistic life. But this position is actually hypocritical. It is nothing but a false artistic flowering. For it does not proceed from treating art as a Dionysian worldview, but as a form.
So fundamentally, a Kantian critique would only form the Tautology of capitalism, and the absence of a critique of immanence and transcendence would simply allow the fallacy to play out once again. The absence of an affirmation of eternal return inevitably leads to the same end.
Therefore, we cannot be satisfied with a simple criticism. It is as if it thinks that if it condemns Marxism and the left then things will change. But that is a lie. Marx and the left must be transcended and not become again a militarized confrontation like a political confrontation. The issue of the struggle of the left is important to some extent, but let the struggle transcend the left. This is a context for contemporary resistance. To a large extent, it is the result of "global governance", which treats the continuation of a total war as the politics of peace. This order is the governance of terrorism against a "non-specific enemy". So the struggle, too, has evolved into an insurrection against unrestricted war. It is a postmodern war.
Thinking and resistance now need to be accelerated rather than stuck in an old rhetoric. Accelerationism attempts to accelerate the political situation with the totalization of technology, but that remains the method of the left. We need to get thinking and practice to accelerate.
Finally, if there is a contemporary resistance, it must constitute a Dionysusian art.