Desire and Destruction: Anarchism at an Impasse

Anarchism as an idea inevitably trends towards an acute structural ambiguity at its dialectical extreme points. Anarchism-the elective expression of anarchy-has hit an obvious structural impasse on the issue of material desire vs material destruction.

Anarchy, in the Proudhonian sense began as a world building progressive project. While there were some more destructive minded intellectuals even as far back as the mid 19th century, it was primarily an idea of world building starting with Proudhon and going through the three subsequent successors in Bakunin, Kropotkin and Malatesta. What has always made anarchism anarchism through and through is it's negational logic, this is something that exists even in its political economic iteration. What that negation now amounts to is much more profound then it was in the 19th century.

The 20th century has happened and questions concerning technology(or machineology as I prefer to call it) have been asked and the answers and solutions have been fairly profound from an anarchist perspective. As a radical dialect anarchism has shifted from red to green and the green element of anarchism has called for a material destruction of the world on a profound level. This destruction is part of a call back to the wild or at the very least a less domesticated non civilized form of existence. What has arguably been lost in all of this development is the fact that anarchism is also very much an a desire driven ideology and the drive for desired material abundance has been a primary part of anarchism for it's entire history. One can say that the red/green split in many ways is indicative of this split. The anarchism of the 19th century was about preserving abundance at or near all cost(Malatesta). While the all or nothing approach to abundance can certainly be rejected at this point should material abundance and desire be sacrificed for some brave undefined ecological green new world?

There is an undeniable paradox between the drive to destroy the world and the drive to change it. To change the world is to have that change be registered and this requires some type of historical structure to map this change. There is an unavoidable performative contradiction in this radical approach. To be against world building is to be against world change, there is no escaping this. World destruction would most certainly require facilitated world change on an unimaginable level without the aid of some type of cosmic disaster. World Society(as John Jacobi calls it) is certainly something to be against but to register against it is to register within it(what you resist persists as Jung says). Unmediated change can only be profoundly personal and mostly unregisterable to the world. Personal psychological change has always been the sufficient ingredient to radical change relating to anarchy. It is this insurrection driven change that cannot be conditioned or controlled by a facilitated revolutionary process(Stirner). It is psychological before material.

What of desire in all this? Material excessive desires have been lost in the logic of green and black anarchist destructive urges. Desire should be unlimited and the only mediation to this should be might, competence(Stirner) along with the restrictions of physical reality and other differentiated desire driven psychologies. Clearly abundance should not come at all cost if autonomy and anarchy are to be preserved and pursued. Abundance and autonomy need to inform each other but the latter should always have precedent over the former. There are discursive limits to the former that make something like trans humanism not applicable, the former however should not be curtailed by some unworkable primitivist scheme. It was always a mistake to make anti-civilization a literal elective position as opposed to a philosophical one, anti-civilization works best as a way to be in but not of the world, to not be psychologically sublimated to world society. Once again psychological change is the sufficient approach, world change is the mediation and world destruction-as human facilitated-is inseparable from world change.

The synthesis to this is a Stirnerian infused anarchy as opposed to negation driven anarchism. The anarchy of Stirner is not driven by negation, along with an elective mediating ist/ism, but by desire difference and divergence. These 3 Ds are the sufficient approach for a performatively congruent anarchic practice. I have called this Anarch-Egoist-Anarchy, the next logical step after post-left anarchism and post-anarchism. There is also an undeniable Deleuzean element to this difference and desire approach as there is much compatibility to be found between Stirner and Deleuze on the 3 Ds. There is an undeniable place for negation and destruction in the context of civilization and history, but negation and destruction are the means and not the ends. Difference and desire transcends negation and destruction. Divergence is the movement away from a homogenized authoritarian context through insurrection and other means. Let there be an egoist ecology of owness and not an ecology of sacrifice of desire which is the other side of the coin to sublimating oneself to an artificial homogeneous mass society.

Let us default back to desire then, but not without some destruction along the way which should only be creative and not pathological. As long as there is reification and memory there will always be a homogeneous world to navigate in and around. Trying to destroy the world is as silly as trying to save it. Save, change and enjoy yourself. At the end of the day it all ends badly anyway in the big entropic picture.

The position embodied here, "save, change and enjoy yourself", is a cowardly eschewly of something that should be blatantly obvious. Tell me: what difference between a state of perfect tranquility/happiness and death itself is there? "Save, change and enjoy yourself" is suicide for pussies. And it presumes one is disconnected enough from the mess that is the life-world of production that one can do so, that one has the instrumentality—the capital. It's much easier and much better for the planet to just off ourselves.

Or, we could plant our feet, claim our spaces, and try our best to make a defense against certain incursion and repression. If we die trying, we might never change, or worse yet, we might never enjoy life as much as we could. It's all just a drop in a waterfall anyway, and it's my belief it'ill come back around somehow. Besides, we're hopelessly corrupted. We wouldn't want our invasive roots colonizing the fresh earth. I think the best we can do is negate effectively enough to neutralize, to restore some kind of balance.

To quote @critic:

Quite frankly, there is far too much “turning inward” today already. We need to get back to fighting the real enemy instead of endlessly purging one another. The big problems – climate change, the police, capitalism, the commodity form, the Spectacle, the state, command hierarchies, poverty, inequality, ecocide – are all big, macrosocial, outer-worldly problems. They aren't problems of individual psychology or intimate-scale relations. To test this, just imagine trying to solve them at an individual or small-group level. It's possible up to a point – there have been communes which live without money and/or have zero eco-footprint. This might well be part of the solution. But if so, it's part of the solution only because the micro becomes macro. By itself, micro-level change doesn't destroy the big structures.

Finally, a topic which describes individual responsibility and self-reliance as worthy goals to aspire to, by delving inwards into the source of all perception and interpretation. Firstly as sole beings sharing this planet, then as the resulting individuated entity character building the qualities which exemplify what I describe as " The Anarch Reticulum ".

Also, I've been thinking about the history of desire, that the one dominating feature of all economies is that they are driven by desire, demand and libido, thus the libidinal economy is forever repeating the same political algorithms which go back to the Sumerian civilization and other.
The cycle of reproduction can never be defeated from outward, but only from the inner psychological harnessing of the Self-Being, interpreting ones desire for survival with the forces of nature. Any man -made force must be regarded as temporarily available to use creatively, to destroy it will only recuperate the same structure again, over and over, whereas to engage in a creative insurgency is to evolve and reinvent cascading diverging systems of infinite potential.

The things that should be destroyed are the rationales which thwart and deny creative desire's fruition.

That's the one type of accelerationism(the official theory and it's gang are a joke to me) I can get behind given how much desire is indeed thwarted. The destruction reduction of anarchism is really a failure of imagination as well as a discourse at the dead end of an inner modern epoch.

Stop replying to yourself jackass ...

I think this is what you are saying about historical repetition.
--"Capitalism in Mesopotamia
Summary: Examines evidence of early forms of capitalism in the first known civilization, Mesopotamia. Explores Mesopotamia's other characteristics and qualities of the modern global civilization today.
Mesopotamia, the first known established civilization, had many characteristics and qualities of the modern global civilization today. The way business was conducted then, closely reflects how business is done today; contracts were made, there were punishments for people who broke these contracts, laws were established to protect people from dishonest business men, and there were forms of capitalism in Mesopotamia. Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of businesses, with little or no interference from the government, meaning that businesses would be in direct competition with each other. Capitalism is shown in Mesopotamia by the way that trade was conducted, the way the labour market operated, and that there were very little socialistic ideals involved in the way the system worked.
The way that trade was done in Mesopotamia would now be known as a market economy. "

"There is an undeniable paradox between the drive to destroy the world and the drive to change it. To change the world is to have that change be registered and this requires some type of historical structure to map this change. "

SE, the champion of comment-section binary revolt against binaries, has just now reinforced the binary of "destruction vs construction"... and at the same time reinforcing the spoof that is "the world".

"The anarchy of Stirner is not driven by negation"... But it IS. Stirner negates previously-accepted assumptions that are consistuent to common sense, to the dominant doctrines and to the perceived norms. Without this negation the assertion of the unknown is impossible, as spooks are in the way. Here lies the problem with this false dichotomy defended here... in how it is a necessity to be negating some values in order to pave way for other perspectives of thought and action. This is the ancient hindu principle that no construction comes without destruction, that both are part of a process of change.

I'm not dichotomising destruction vs desire, I'm problematicising the excessive directions that both can go into regarding the issue of excess.

Humans whether you like it or not are an extra-animal excessive visionary species and the green vs red/bluetransHu directions represent the impasse that I am talking about. What I want is an anarchy that synthesizes visions of excess but also remains true to the earth without impeding desire.

Of course Stirner is a negational thinker in the Hegelian philosophical sense. He's basically taking him in a purely individuated will based direction to the point where he cynically(classic philosophy) savages representational abstract currency. This does not however entail the pathological negation tendencies that anarchism becomes attracted to over time(make total destroy, ect). Of course there is not separation between construction and destruction but the more blacker eco-fetishing anarchists tend to miss that point as well in their quest to cleanse the earth and 'save' her.

Difference, diversity and divergence is driven by negation to an inherent degree but it is not negation in the extreme destructive anarchist sense. There is also the drive to reroute the desires of the world to the individual. Ultimately biospheric life itself if a descriptive balance not a prescriptive one. It's all going to entropy eventually, it's a matter of how you navigate this through postulation and relative solutions as opposed to final solutions.

Oh ziggles ...Different commenter here! I find your "sufficient ingredient" woefully lacking in every conceivable way.

You're forever mistaking your personal journey through life for politics. Oh well ..

I prefer the philosophical(with a hammer) approach to orientation and change then the political.

Yes and that would be fine for you but you try and be prescriptive with it, claiming it's "better" instead of Uhm ... Let's say, focused on the self ;)

That's more proscriptive if/then as opposed to prescriptive. I'm not really TELLING you to do anarchy this is/ought sort of way(I'm being suggestive). I simply don't think elective language and registered world change really helps anarchy in regards to what matters corporeally and psychologically.

zig, you sound ever more like an academic. careful with that.

Just because I use some academic associated language does not make me an academic buddy. There is a line of discourse to be pursued beyond the intellectual and the anti-intellectual.

"The anarchist, as the born foe of authority, will be destroyed by it after damaging it more or less. The anarch, on the other hand, has appropriated authority; he is sovereign. He therefore behaves as a neutral power vis-à-vis state and society. He may like, dislike, or be indifferent to whatever occurs in them. That is what determines his conduct; he invests no emotional values." ~ Ernst Junger
To appropriate authority is to thwart its negative aspects and turn the authority over to ones own desires. This is the intricate play of personal power over external power, a psychic wrestling match mastering the intrigues of the social reticulum.

And have obviously taken to his coinage of anarch(though in a substantially different way). I don't care for his conservatism and naked sovereignty however. I think it's more about diverting and ignoring authority as opposed to appropriating it. Not everything can be appropriated least of all authority relative to anarchy.

I do say that anarch and anarchy go together though without any elective ist/ism mediation in between. Anarchy works better as a hammering philosophy and not as a politics.

Conservatism will always be a force within the expectant society, and I base this upon my experiences with the structure of multidimensional extended families within indigenous societies, where the old traditions were gently instilled into the infantile learning curriculum. I don't believe in the Marxist theory of institutional and hereditary accumulation and decay. It may apply to the critique of the capitalist nuclear family where grandparents are assumed to have become obsolete reservoirs of traditional ideological restraint.
My opinion is of the nihilo-anarch, as the benevolent dictator, insisting on the supply of positive desire to the masses, not the Nien Nien Nien but the Yes Yes Yes of affirmative positive conservatism of the Nihilo-Anarch dictatorship.

True, anarchist experience was only ever realized by the boy soldiers of the Congo who raped and murdered anyone who got in their way yet followed a strict morality of desire fulfilment and destruction. They hated conservatives and amoral people goes with the ideology of retribution and total freedom.
Striker only comprehended the bourgeois classroom as his social laboratory, it was formal and progressive yet cloaked in the intellectual licence for freedom of speech.

Striker ---Stirner

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.
Enter the code without spaces.