Anarchist Theories and Factions that Get to You

52 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anarchist Theories and Factions that Get to You

I tend to be bothered by Egoists, Nihilists, and, Post-Left Anarchists.

Post-Left Anarchy really kind of gets at something, but, I don't think that they adequately cope with that the theory hazards being co-opted by the far-Right via that it does lend itself to be subverted by crypto-Fascist discourse. I honestly haven't had too many interactions with Post-Left Anarchists and could just be assuming too much, though.

I just see Nihilism as being misguided. To my understanding, the philosophy of negation is just Sartrean Existentialism. I tend to use "nihilist" negatively and wonder if I'm not being unfair to the school of thought. The way I see it is that Nihilism is sort of like a coping mechanism where a person just kind of shuts down faced with the incapacity to cope with the human condition. You should not desire that language be rendered meaningless. I guess I see Nihilism as just simply being the pejorative levelled at Existentialists. I think that you should try to reinject meaning into the world. I did a reading group on Nihilist Communism a while ago which I like because they bring up a lot of things that I am interested in and have a few really great rambles like the one that begins with "Bowling Green. Sewing Machine." They offer transcendence in partial jest and in partial sincerity at the end of that text and, in retrospect, I can't help but thinking that all that they would transcend would be Nihilism. Perhaps, I just don't give the school of thought enough credit. I honestly haven't actually read too many Nihilist texts.

Egoism, I see as being resultant in exclusive cliques who fetishize as fucked up of forms of Individualism as humanly possible. This mostly stems from Egoists that I've met online and could just be off base as such parties are likely to be fairly isolated and anti-social. I don't think that the actual school of thought is really like this. While I'm not an Individual Anarchist, I am sort of partial to the theory. I am, however, against the aporia of human relations that predicates them upon the "findings" of Game Theory. Perhaps, I just haven't met the right Egoists, though. I honestly don't think that the school of thought can really be all that bad.

Does anyone have or care to issue a retort? I'm an Pacifist and a far-Left Anarchist and so I'm sure that my particular inclinations are sure to bother some people.

anon (not verified)
you read nihilist communism?

you read nihilist communism?

i haven’t. maybe you can better understand what this critique of it is getting at.

i dislike all theories and factions and they’re all irrelevant to my everyday life.

some might be relevant to the abstracted macro and micro categories which can describe things that influence it, but that’s not particularly useful to my daily decisions.

Oh, cool, the one of them. I

Oh, cool, the one of them. I would honestly recommend Nihilist Communism in spite of that I'm not much of a Nihilist. I see Existentialism as being partially opposed to Nihilism. I like the way that they talk. I, ultimately think that they're a bit too bleak, but, that is also just a part of their style. Do you know if the other Dupont has written anything? I've only ever seen articles by Frère.

anon (not verified)
this sunday there will be a

this sunday there will be a live podcast with a live irc chat on the topic of nihilism. you can debate and ask questions through the chat, send an email, or even call in (which they’d prefer).
they’ll be posting the ad around friday probably.

Oh, cool. I have been

Oh, cool. I have been meaning to learn more about Nihilism as I don't think that I've really given it enough credit to warrant the critiques that I have to make of it.

anon (not verified)
The Freedom of Things: An

The Freedom of Things: An ethnology of Control is written by the other dupont

This is a pretty good follow

This is a pretty good follow up on Nihilist Communism, btw. Thanks, anon.

He pessimistically uses his

He pessimistically uses his devotion to the cause of Communism as being somewhat exemplary of what he gleans to be wrong with the concept of "anti-work" and offers the concept of "non-work" as a creative alternative. He's really skilled with rhetoric. You kind of just have to carefully read his work to really get it. He's offering a concept of alterity as a substitution to axioms that are levelled purely against Capital.

anon (not verified)
nice summary.

nice summary.

by reading it i could glean he’s adept at turning a phrase, and could enjoy it on that level. but i was unsure if it mostly amounted to splitting hairs between anti-work and non-work, and why that distinction would be important.

but i guess anti-work would be more like the luddites, and no work, more like the situationists, or just anyone who takes a break i guess. so there might be a point there somewhere.

meanwhile, i’m underemployed and underleisured and bored

anon (not verified)
His concept is fairly complex

His concept is fairly complex, but, that's generally in the way of what he's on about.

I'm, as you can see, much in the same way, and, just hoping that this forum somehow picks up for the time being.

(Both of those previous posts

(Both of those previous posts were me and I just forgot to log back in.)

His concept is fairly complex, but, that's generally in the way of what he's on about. I actually agree with the general ish of that piece. I just don't know why they identify as being Nihilist. It could just be that the see the state of affairs as being nihilistic. Idrk.

I'm, as you can see, much in the same way, and, just hoping that this forum somehow picks up for the time being.

anon (not verified)
I actually just pretty much

I actually just pretty much agree with the general ish of that piece. It's very good. Thanks for bringing it up, anon.

anon (not verified)
"the theory hazards being co

"the theory hazards being co-opted by the far-Right via that it does lend itself to be subverted by crypto-Fascist discourse."

what exactly is the crypto-Fascist discourse, and how does the fairly broad category of post-left (a) lend itself for subversion?

How they manipulate discourse

How they manipulate discourse. Idrk that I think that it's really like that. It just seems to lend itself to a fairly reactionary anti-Communist bent which I kinda doubt ever gets addressed however. Because it is an Anarchist position slated against left-wing organization, it lends itself to that say the alt-Right will try to utilize such a position to generally produce dissonance. You shouldn't be obsessive about setting out a proper political praxis like I am, but, I kind of feel like the post-Left tendency just doesn't do anything about the intramural problems that they create. There's more of a divide than I think needs to exist and I suspect for it to have been produced by that the far-Right does intentionally create dissonance. My critique is that it seems to be the case that far-Left Anarchist inclinations attempt to rectify this whereas the post-Left tendency just simply doesn't do anything about it. Idrk that I think that it's really like that, though.

Platypus (not verified)
manipulating discourse through a dialectic

i have an issue with the repeated "subject/object" differentiation in these conversations. It's really a metaphor for "manipulator/manipulated".

If I'm going to be talking to anyone, i want the person i'm talking to to manipulate the conversation, just as i manipulated their doors of perception by starting the conversation. It's the marxist dialectic in reality, but it's always going to go outside of that. It matters little to me who is creating the dissonance, i prefer not to pay attention to the far right. One time over the past year i visited richard spencer's forum, and it was just someone complaining about muscly women who wear tattoos and go to gyms. I even thought about trolling stormfront but it's kinda hard since they're posts are so fucking incoherent anyways.

anon (not verified)
Im bothered by the west coast

Im bothered by the west coast post left anarchy. It comes across as bratty and condescending in various media projects. While anarchists in other parts of the US and world manage to hold those views while... not being that way? Like on the south theres a lot of kids into nihilism or insurecto type stuff and they dont have the superiority complex.

Post-Left, Individualism and Anarchy

I really don’t how post-left anarchy has been co-opted by fascism, if anything this is what happens to the left in the long term. Post-Left anarchy comes out of niche anarchism and it more then the others pushes the problems of elective positions and proposed solutions and how they ultimately don’t add up to actual anarchy. Anarchism is essentially the elective form of anarchy. What will determine whether something glues with fascism or not is underlying sensibilities. The sensibilities of anarchy tend to be open, Dionysian and intercoursive.

I actually(like Bob Black) don’t care for nihilism as a focused prime position. It’s a transient method not to be overused or emphasized. Egoism is simply an acute sense of individuality and preference, it’s indispensable to anarchy. It also does not entail game theory at all as that is based on assumed orders of rationality which Stirnerian egoism rejects. I call this Anarch-Egoist-Anarchy. Anarchy with the elective proposed ism/it’s.

I figured that I should clear this up as well.

I'm coming to figure out that Post-Left Anarchism is just the critique of organization and that my concerns were admittedly a bit alarmist. It probably just stems from being around the lunatic fringe for too long. The responses do help to clear this up. Thanks, anons.

I guess I see Egoism as being resultant in an aporia of human relations that is similar to what comes from Game Theory. When all thought is strategic and all actions are motivated solely by rational self-interest, I see the world as becoming deprived of trust. I honestly didn't pay too much attention when I read The Ego and Its Own, though. Do you care to elaborate upon Egoism?

You can respond whenever, but, I will actually be taking off for a couple of days now. Cya later.

Delegate 14 (not verified)


You are not honoring the terms of your banishment that was decided on in a directly democratic process. If not you, who?

According to the bylaws your period of banishment is reset from this moment.

You can appeal in 175 hours from now.

Good day.

I contest this contempt. I

I contest this contempt. I will be back in five days or so and then will probably post a good bit less as I will be going back to college and will therefore have less time on my hands. I have, admittedly, exceeded the democratic tenent of majority rule, but, would argue that I can make an appeal to that my forum usage should fit around my schedule. Such an exception to the rule is only sensisble. I will be leaving for some span of time now, though, and, so, will see you all later.

anon (not verified)
come live with me, i want you

come live with me, i want you in my arms, not in my pocket. i would not limit your blabbering. i’d listen to you instead of podcasts.

my arms are not good shelter tho, so better stay where you are : (

anon (not verified)
I'm sure that your arms are

I'm sure that your arms are good shelter, anon. I could probably stand to get out of my basement. I don't really know how I feel about just picking up and shipping off somewhere, though. I have, like, six years of college to make it through since I've spent so much time fuckin' around. It is nice to know that someone appreciates that I ramble, though. Thanks, anon. I'll see you in a couple of days or so.

Le Way
You should just become your

You should just become your own benign dictator and post whenever you like, DAMN THE MAJORITY RULE!

anon (not verified)
Post-left @ is a little more

Post-left @ is a little more than a critique of organization... It certainly includes a basic analysis of organizations, especially ones that rely too much on squashing internal dissent as well as tendencies toward centralization, but to reduce it to just that is just ignorant. There is also a critique of nationalism/anti-imperialism, a critique of identity politics, a critique of the way anarcho-leftists downplay and/or dismiss the role of the individual in relation to the collective, a critique of anarchists who tail after leftists in public protests and various campaigns and projects, a critique of mass society (including workerism and technology), a critique of mythological and ideological thinking, a critique of morality (especially as it relates to peer pressure and conformity). This list is not exhaustive.

I honestly haven't really

I honestly haven't really read too many Post-Left texts and don't really claim to know too much about it. I wonder about critiques of idenity politics, "collectivism", and the critique of "morality". "Moralism" is used as a slur to describe anything that anyone considers to be "idealistic". I honestly think that the tendency to do so stems directly from the Marxist thought terminating cliche of "bourgeois moralism". I guess I think that the critique of organization is the most interesting aspect of the Post-Left. Nothing else seems to be too terribly relevant to me. Idenity politics are kind of annoying, but, they'll figure whatever it is that they're trying to figure out eventually. To me, it seems like the philosophy is too slated against the State. I think that the State is sort of an outdated concept and that the real nemesis is Empire. That's just theory, though. I guess I only really ment to point out that I don't really have a problem with Post-Left Anarchism like I thought that I did. It's not my particular inclination, but, they do have a critique to make.

anon (not verified)
what’s Empire?

what’s Empire?

I define Empire as the

I define Empire as the regimens of the State and Capital as they relate to the reticulum of political power which only so adequately describes the concept developed by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri in Empire.

I don't think that either the State or Capital suffice to describe where the plights of current era stem from and so use Empire to describe this.

anon (not verified)
so Empire is a less

so Empire is a less encompassing version of civ?

You could level that from a

You could level that from a perspective. From what I know, I don't think that anyone has.

anon (not verified)
Wait.. aren't you supposed to be taking a week break?

Aaaaah! I knew this more of your LeWanker's deceit. You like to feel like you're pwning people here... that makes you feel self-important and perhaps even gives you a sense of self-worth.

Le Way is right.

I have decided that I am just a natural born leader of men and to post here until the 30th when I have to go back to school in civil disobedience of the esoteric sect who seeks to extrapolate the democratic project so that it may service their own ends.

anon (not verified)
"I honestly haven't really

"I honestly haven't really read too many Post-Left texts and don't really claim to know too much about it"
and yet here you are, claiming to know all sorts of things about the discourse. i fully expect this kind of pontificating despite ignorance on the more open pages, but here in the less free-for-all forums it is a little more surprising. relying on rumor, caricature, mischaracterization, and the smears of anarcho-leftists to pass judgement on their ideological opponents is... well, all sorts of negative things, but it all comes down to this: it's not how to engage in an actual discussion, let alone debate.

since you're obviously no longer interested in making dismissive comments about an entire discourse, perhaps you'll deign to read something. here's a specifically post-left critique of morality and moralism that has nothing to do with your misunderstanding that the critique derives from Marxism. it's easy to read and is relatively short.

as for the analytical category of Empire, talk about derivatives from Marxism; Hardt and Negri are explicit Marxists and their technophilic and heirarchic absurdities are on full display in their stupid books "Empire" and "Multitude."

tl;dr: do some homework before spouting off and being called on it

Why should you read any

Why should you read any theory outside of the limited worldview that you have created for yourself based off of your own subjective experience?

I was referring moreso to usage of the term and not necessarily the theory that it stems from. From what I've experienced, wittingly or not, when people accuse others of "moralism" they are referring to the thought terminating cliche of "bourgeois moralism".

This critique is pretty interesting. I'm not sure that "non-fetishized" moralism is possible. Such a concept would describe an Ethical limit which ought to be strived for, but, that can never be achieved. It is impossible to know the consequences of an action before one commits it. Such an appeal to a well reasoned universal can be good in so far that it reinforces rationale, but, negative in so far that it may assume the veracity of an ethic. That Ethics can have a definite accuracy still assumes that there are abstract virtues. Such principles seem to invoke the divine. Reason can be substituted for divinity, but, in doing so, the sovereignty of the divine needs to be challanged.

Nothing is certain and all acts require a leap of faith. All acts are therefore motivated by ideals. Since no person can act as a paragon, all ideals are bound to be somewhat "fetishized". Abstract concepts have a limitless potential for explication. A person is bound to be somewhat fixated upon something.

I haven't quite hashed this all out myself. In short, I sort of agree with what this text is getting at, but, suspect for them to have, in part, substituted some sort of radical rationale for what could be described as the ethics of the Enlightenment, in doing so, to have offered an Ethical position which is preferable to most of what you can find now, but, that still does not suffice.

Also, how is Empire "technophilic"? It is, in part, a critique of technocracy. The rail against network-power nearly the entire time.

Ethical Egoism

I think that I may have been confused by the Wiki on Egoism and my reading of Max Stirner. I've just skimmed through a bit of The Ego and Its Own and I don't really think that what I thought that he thought was there. The Wikipedia on Stirner states that he is a psychological, rational, and, Ethical Egoist. I sort of agree with and don't really take issue with psychological or rational Egoism. I was moreso talking about Ethical Egoism. I think that Ethical Egoism is sort of solipsistic in that it denies that others exist. Was Stirner an Ethical Egoist?

EDIT: This is kind of strange aside, but, in a fit of madness, I had at one point been convinced that Max Stirner was a spy for Ludwig I of Bavaria. My relationship to Egoism is rather strange because of that.

EDIT II: I have, since, recovered and no longer harbor such delusions.

anon (not verified)
I told you, I WARNED YOU,

I told you, I WARNED YOU, that within 2 weeks of visiting this site you would become a budding Stirnerian, hahahahaaaaa

Oh, I doubt that I will fully

Oh, I doubt that I will fully convert. Egosim is a cult unto itself. I do think that I was incorrect in my assumptions, though. His philosophy really isn't what I thought it was.

anon (not verified)
Life is a cult, getting up in

Life is a cult, getting up in the morning and making coffee is a cult.
You'll have to do better to explain away your already obvious fledgling admiration for Stirner.
You're in denial.

I do like Stirner more than I

I do like Stirner more than I thought that I would. I probably won't be permuted, though. Stirnerites are just totally fanatical. I don't see myself becoming too much of a devotee. It's all fine and well and good that anyone is, though.

anon (not verified)
Its sort of like reading and

Its sort of like reading and understanding something, and its impossible to unknow it. Like and inf3ction, you are a Stirnerian whether you like it or not. There's no turning back, there is no denouncing, you are bitten!



anon (not verified)
Yes, so you know what you

Yes, so you know what you have to do now, you have to spread his word through the corridors of academia, it is humanities last chance for survival. I am deadly serious!

anon (not verified)
i've not yet read stirner!

i've not yet read stirner! the defiance of my ignorance prevails!

anon (not verified)
many post-left and

many post-left and individualist @s can indeed come off as condescending and are often hyper critical of the left. i dislike the former, but i have no problem with the latter - other than the fact that i find that obsession (attacking the left) far too consuming and usually a waste of my time.

the critique of the left intersects largely with the critique of ideological thinking. so perhaps it is best to start there, if you are truly interested in understanding a post/anti-left perspective. there are many great critiques of ideological thinking and the left. do a search on to see some.

i would suggest writings by wolfi, jason mcquinn and lawrence jarach to start.

i would suggest reading "enemies of society" as a good collection of individualist anarchist thought - i think the introduction alone serves rather well in that capacity. if you think individualist anarchy is ayn randian, you have missed the point completely.

another search on the library will give you plenty more to chew on (not all of it good, imo).

anon (not verified)
anarcho-leftists have been

anarcho-leftists have been insinuating right-wing/fascist/"third position" overlap/crossover to the post-left anarchy discourse since at least 2008. in the past decade there hasn't been any measurable or significant "creep" (in the inimitably idiotic words of Alexander Reid-Ross) in this direction that can be pointed to with any evidence. none. this is an imaginary and alarmist backlash from self-described anarchists who are more interested in maintaining their longstanding alliances and collaborations with progressives, social democrats, and tankies.

Left-wing Communists,

Left-wing Communists, Libertarian Communists, the Democratic Socialists of America, the peace movement, left-wing Liberals, and, a few Libertarians are our, being myself and whoever agrees with me, allies, but, none of those parties are Progressives, Social Democrats, or, members of the Communist Party of Great Britain. I do advance a project that is Anarchist, but, do not advance one that is exclusive to Anarchists. Why limit your social circle to only Anarchists?

anon (not verified)
it would be interest to

it would be interest to discuss how you engage with these allies, given the TOTW.

what entails being allies?

the only relationships i’m personally familiar with are:

-complete stranger
-familiar stranger
-friendly acquaintance
-extended family
-close family

i’m familiar with concept of enemy, and have never interacted in such a relationship, but i think there would be a gradient of antipathy and loathing as well.

They're realistically my

They're realistically my allies in my imagination. As you can see, I don't really get out all that much. The transmission in my car went out. I'm kind of stuck at my house.

They're all complete strangers. I do actually know some left-wing Liberals who were close friends.

My family is all fairly right-wing and I don't really discuss politics with them at all. I'm a first-generation Anarchist.

anon (not verified)
sell your car as is or the

sell your car as is or the parts and buy a ticket to nowhere

you'll find allies there

anon (not verified)
Seconded... Your family's not

Seconded... Your family's not there to support your ideals, nor even to understand them. Don't waste your time with them. Same for that car... some people will pay for parts. Furthermore attachment to commodity, where it leads, brah?

anon (not verified)
I cant fucking stand demand

I cant fucking stand demand utopia. Theyre a weird bookchin cult. They literally believe deep ecology is fascist. They put this homeless person's stuff out in the rain once and didnt give a fuck that it upset her. Its fucking bizarre. Might start shit in Seattle with them to keep the tradition going.

anon (not verified)
But deep ecology IS a type of

But deep ecology IS a type of demand utopia, if you REALLY analyse the eschatological psychology behind both of the ideologies.
But of course, everyones afraid of psychology, they know it exposes the inevitable basic human societal flaws.

Egoist Ecology

This needs to become a formal conceptual theory and framework. You need something that is post-humanist but pro excess and not anti-human which ends up controlling the unique one that founds the human.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the code without spaces.