Nihilist Communism - the book

From Ardent Press

Nihilist Communism is a tonic. In a time when a conversation about politics begins AND ends as soon as you say where you are coming from Monsieur Dupont has changed the topic. Nihilist Communism is about the impossibile where one thing is confirmed; every solution offered by the left, the politicians, the anarchists, is worth nothing.

Originally self-published in 2003, now edited and designed by Ardent Press this is a scathing, thoughtful rebuttal to those who continue to believe that the revolution is just a matter of consciousness-raising and recruitment, or that identity politics has anything to do with communist thought.

Many will reject the materialism inherent in this analysis, but we appreciate the logical consistency (and the occasional brilliance of writing) of Monsieur Dupont; so refreshing in a world in which people withdraw to muddle-headedness in incoherent attempts to fit all topics into some kind of grab bag, attempts seemingly designed to avoid offense rather than to follow ideas through to their logical (or even illogical) conclusions.

Unlike so many people who either reject theory all together (rather, who obscure the theory that they work from), or who embrace theory and ignore the ways reality doesn't fit their ideas, Msr Dupont reflected on their experience (and that of others) and changed their theory to suit their lives. We need more people who are willing to be unpopular, who work an idea until it groans, who reflect on real life experiences and then acknowledge the ways in which prevailing theory doesn't make sense, and who are then capable of challenging prevailing theory to be more coherent, more realistic, and more useful.

You can find Nihilist Communism at our distribution partner Little Black Cart

Nihilist Communism

a critique of optimism in the far left
(the religious dogma that states there will be an ultimate triumph of good over evil)
Paper, $14.00, 5.5"x7.5", 280 pages

We are Ardent Press
This book was printed for us by the incredible Eberhardt Press

I miss texts that dream of

I miss texts that dream of another world, yet don't talk so condescendingly as if they have all the answers, and this text is another one of those that have been coming out so much lately.

To suggest of another world

To suggest of another world is to talk condescendingly. When you break from the standard you are claiming to know better.

"To suggest of another world

"To suggest of another world is to talk condescendingly. When you break from the standard you are claiming to know better."

how so? what standard? this explains little of your reasoning. anarchists would naturally desire to break with "the standard" as it is because that standard is capitalism and the state, in other words anthema to us. so if breaking with the standard is to act like you know better than isn't the opposite true, if not more true: follwing the standard means you allow someone (something) else to say they (it) know (knows) better than you? at any rate who really said any such thing is claiming to know better about anything? how is it not simply claiming your desired path and fuck every obstacle in the way of said path and nothing more than this, with no claims to right or wrong?

"how so?" By deviating from

"how so?"

By deviating from the norm, you are creating separation.

"what standard?"

Mainstream society, the apolitical, the mainstream political.

"anarchists would naturally desire to break with "the standard" as it is because that standard is capitalism and the state, in other words anthema to us."

Sure, but it creates a new morality. What gives you the right to define these things outside of common use? Anarchists often claim to speak for others "the working class, oppressed peoples, the environment, animals." One, they can't, two, only individuals can speak (or react) for themselves. The opposition of capitalism and the state creates a good vs. evil construct that produces a new authority. By opposing these things are you are saying "Bad!" It means you have a better opinion or view than someone else.

"so if breaking with the standard is to act like you know better than isn't the opposite true, if not more true: follwing the standard means you allow someone (something) else to say they (it) know (knows) better than you?"

And this is where the role of leadership and the social contract falls into play. As anarchist, you are supposed to oppose authority. This ought to be your own in most peoples heads OR you support chaotic events. However, disrupting others lives or train of thought is not anarchy but rather a former of order and instruction.

" at any rate who really said any such thing is claiming to know better about anything?"

Uh, the world at large.

"how is it not simply claiming your desired path and fuck every obstacle in the way of said path and nothing more than this, with no claims to right or wrong?"

Because your yearns correlate with other yearns. The moment you decide that your desires are more important than anyone else's you have established your own desire as good, you have created structure with echelons of appropriate desires. If it comes at the expense of other desires, they are either evil or irrelevant. So, when you claim your desired path and fuck every obstacle, you are putting your desires above you like a religion.... like nihilism. Nihilism is not the rejection of good or evil, it is rejection of these thoughts to pursue your own Good, like al Qaeda.

no, i do not agree with your

no, i do not agree with your response. my opposition to society has no "good" and "evil" categories. i do not oppose society because i find it morally reprehensible, i oppose it because it is in the way of how i wish to live and, yes, i have to admit i oppose it because of the massive volumes of death it creates, i do not find this using of life desirable.

as to the majority of the worlds people i first of all do not proclaim i know what the majority of the worlds people feel, most importantly because they do not all share a brain and following on that because it is not like i can project myself into everyones being and see what is going on with everyone else.

as to everything else, conflict exists. the difference between the sort of thing i am trying to promote and actual authoritarianism could not be clearer. an authoritarian insists on telling other people what the right way to live is and where he or she can will back this up with violence. my own desire is to create a space for myself and like minds away from interference from standards we reject, and for that matter clear space through negation for a variety of other affinities. if peoples toes are not being stepped on and the natural world is not being devoured into products and technologies i could care less what anyone else does, far as i am concerned the capitalists, fascists, leninists, christians et al. could have their own communities (if they are that much of purists as to want them so bad)...just if they tried to meddle with my own i would not hesitate to be violent in return: in a situation of kill or be killed i will side with kill, thank you much (hate the situation but no getting around it).

what you appear to be doing is justifying capitalism. judging by this rehtoric you would probably feel the same about whatever hegemonic order was out there, you sound like an apologist. thing is hegemonic orders impose, and people who are disgruntled impose counter to these orders. life is just as much about conflict as cooperation and we will never be rid of it. burying our heads in the sand in the name of a fictional peace, while i am certainly not going to come along and yank them out of the sand at gunpoint (that would be carrying this too far in my book) is simply dodging the issue. if i am going to live by a set of standards they will be my own, no apologies unless i decide i feel like they are warrented. why would i live by what others thought was right?

to sum up: what i am is

to sum up: what i am is opposed to hegemony in any form it could take, including an "anarchist" form of hegemony.

"what you appear to be doing

"what you appear to be doing is justifying capitalism. judging by this rehtoric you would probably feel the same about whatever hegemonic order was out there, you sound like an apologist. thing is hegemonic orders impose, and people who are disgruntled impose counter to these orders. "

These are morals. You have suggested ideologically that I appear to be justifying capitalism. I'm not. I'm pointing out logical failures in the anarchist milieu, this is what I always do. I'm not apologizing for anything or anyone. There are certain logical failures or untruths that many anarchists seem to promote.

"if i am going to live by a set of standards they will be my own, no apologies unless i decide i feel like they are warrented."
And this a personal ethic or morality.

"why would i live by what others thought was right?" Because it is could be beneficial or because you don't believe that you have the authority to hold your standards above someone else.

I'm not defending anything. I think these are legitimate questions people ought to ask as they figure out what it is they want.

- veranasi

Wanting something

Wanting something qualitatively different than this existence certainly isn't something to condemn. However, I would agree that the mind-set of radical activism - a practice based on popularizing one's own values; an inevitably condescending and administrative practice - is something to avoid.

"Nihilism is not the rejection of good or evil, it is rejection of these thoughts to pursue your own Good, like al Qaeda."

That's not nihilism as I understand it. Or, at the very least, that's not my nihilism. (My) Nihilism is the rejection of fundamental and absolute valuations. For example, my rejection of the valuation that those who espouse radical values and ideas are inherently revolutionary -- individuals capable of catalyzing changes in living conditions, irrespective of context or given relations. From the perspective of a conscious nihilist, all human valuations are baseless and only mere attempts to fill the void of meaninglessness that surrounds us. The 'revolutionist' dogmatically adheres to the valuation that they are capable of producing revolutionary change, and this becomes their predominant intent in existence. Obviously, this critical outlook of mine was inspired by the above book (which I still have to finish reading...).

Islamists, and other religious ideologues willing to sacrifice themselves, are nihilistic insofar as they see this existence as generally meaningless as it is below their moral stature. They are the only pure ones left, the only truth in this world; and they will do anything to preserve and potentially expand that ideological valuation. Nihilism, like anything else, is not inherently radical or 'anti-authoritarian'. So please, veranasi, don't go painting essential definitions everywhere you go. Nihilism is just another fiction humans have created so that they may better understand all the other fictions. At the end of the day, all those fictions coagulate into some form of fact. Conscious nihilists are merely polite enough to point out that the fact isn't really there. Not to say it's above critique. Just that, implying there's something inherently religious about nihilism seems kind of broad and facile to me. Nihilists can certainly be religious, though. Just as anarchists and communists can, as well. Religion is a consequence of our consciousness. The consciousness of organisms is not static and linear; there can be innumerable variations and distortions that can occur. The trick is to keep moving -- to keep burning everything that may potentially harm you or that you dislike. It's the curse of consciousness: there's no one truth to arrive at and find safety from the void.

As far as morality goes, I think that humans will inevitably produce moral value (ethics, morality, etc). If only because we are complex animals capable of emotional responses to stimuli and events in general, just like most other complex creatures. I reject morality insofar as I am critical of universal imperatives backed by moral value (e.g., you should never murder; murder is a sin). What that guy Kant called 'categorical imperatives'. But I'm still an ethical creature, I can't avoid it; I don't want to. The real danger in morality is when it becomes institutionalized. That's really the point where most abstractions become a danger to people (in a generalized sense), I think.

'Deviating from the norm' does create a separation. There's clearly a separation between anarchists and others. This isn't something to look down on. The current, predominant practices of trying to bridge that separation usually entail some sort of activism. That is, they are mostly attempts to popularize radical values and ideas; things which are opposed to the dominant ideology and structure of this society (liberalism; capitalism). For example, the general analysis of left anarchists is something like: the working class lacks 'correct' organizational forms, or perhaps organization all together, and so there's a need to introduce their organizational forms into the class and make them dominant. This is inherently an administrative position as it ignores the relation of radical organizations and individuals to the larger class, which is subject to an intellectual and ideological separation. Not to say we're smarter than the majority of the working class; only that, most of them lack an analysis of capitalism (at least beyond what they're informed of by capitalist elements, i.e., populists, nationalists, etc). And obviously, most people are ideologically liberal. It also presumes, as usual, that the organizational forms peddled by radicals are revolutionary in-and-of themselves.

Anyways...I do know better. I know better than to accept these conditions. Nothing gives me the right to do this. As an anarchist, I would only expect to have developed a hostility to having rights in the first place. Rights are reified expressions of state power, not freedom. I certainly do have a more developed opinion than most people I know. Is it qualitatively different (i.e., better) than theirs? I would like to think so. I'm not going to give into pretensions towards all opinions and ideas being of the same value and quality. Also, being ethically aversive to state power does not make morality. It could be described as a moral value, but I'm not expressing a universal and fundamental imperative.

"However, disrupting others lives or train of thought is not anarchy but rather a former of order and instruction."

It's not 'instructive' if I disrupted someone's activity or thoughts. It might be rude and obnoxious, though. It's when I start believing my own ideas have inherent functions and potentialities that I become an expert, an administrator intent on spreading the Good Word. This is why activists think that every summit protest will herald the coming of insurrection, popular revolt, revolution, whatever. Our activities and ideas are inherently revolutionary, so it is only matter of time and accumulation...

You realize you have not

You realize you have not contradicted anything I have said? As far as essential definitions, if you are confused and led like many other ill thought out theory people do not understand the history or use of words then you are not engaged in theory but theology. There are no absolutes, only suggestions. When use labels of separation like "activist" despite your own ambition and evangelism, you engage in an dogma. And that is good for you, great! But do not pretend to better than anyone else because you recognize a change in definition. My definition of nihilism is the same as yours with less words. Try not to get lost in using too many words to abstract your real thoughts

You realize I never intended

You realize I never intended to contradict you in anyway? I was just adding my two cents. You don't have to disagree with someone in order to communicate with them. Also, maybe you could unpack all of that? If you're going to say someone is evangelistic, then you should probably try to back it up.

I never said I was better than anyone else. I stated that I like to think my opinion is better - that is, more developed - than most people I know. You're jumping to conclusions, and presenting nothing to substantiate what you say.

"When use labels of separation like "activist" despite your own ambition and evangelism, you engage in an dogma"

So I should I not use the word 'activist'? Is that what you are telling me? What should I call activists then? How should I address them when I critique activism?

"My definition of nihilism is the same as yours with less words."

And yet, you never said anything that would have lead me to believe that. Or maybe you don't really agree with me, and you're just dancing around what I said. This is the point of having more words: so people can thoroughly understand where you're coming from, instead of being left scratching their heads in bewilderment (although, it's a fine line, isn't it?). It may make me more pedantic than you, but I'd rather be pedantic and long-winded than what you're giving me right now (whatever it is).

"As far as essential definitions, if you are confused and led like many other ill thought out theory people do not understand the history or use of words then you are not engaged in theory but theology."

So you think my ideas are ill thought out, eh? Well, explain why. I'm not going to just take your word for it. As of now you seem more intent on mocking me than actually talking with me. As far as the 'history and use of words' goes, I think that's a totally lame point. You'll never be able to fully understand the etymological history, the historical context, and ultimate origin of a word or words. Not to mention all the distortions of the word that may have occurred over it's lifetime. When I don't understand a word, I'll look in the nearest dictionary. And I do it often. But I apologize if my research on words never goes beyond that. I'm just not interested in understanding the correct etymology and physical origin of every word I use. Face it, you're just as clueless when it comes to the words you use as I am. Unless you think your opinion and ideas on the subject are more developed than my own!

Anyways...when I said "essential", I was just trying to describe the feeling I had when I read your definition of nihilism -- as if that was the only definition of nihilism. I misunderstood you, though. Sorry.

So, yeah...

"So you think my ideas are

"So you think my ideas are ill thought out, eh? Well, explain why. I'm not going to just take your word for it. As of now you seem more intent on mocking me than actually talking with me. As far as the 'history and use of words' goes, I think that's a totally lame point. You'll never be able to fully understand the etymological history, the historical context, and ultimate origin of a word or words. Not to mention all the distortions of the word that may have occurred over it's lifetime. When I don't understand a word, I'll look in the nearest dictionary. And I do it often. But I apologize if my research on words never goes beyond that. I'm just not interested in understanding the correct etymology and physical origin of every word I use. Face it, you're just as clueless when it comes to the words you use as I am. Unless you think your opinion and ideas on the subject are more developed than my own!"

Ill thought out- If you are not willing to to understand the correct etymology and physical origin of every word you use and you are engaging in some sort of theory, then your use of these words is vain. At the heart of what defines reality and most importantly your reality is the ability to perceive things in a language that best helps your motives. Agreed-to-terms are important! There exists a couple ways to define nihilism and we have already discussed this at A-P a while ago. At that time, you saw nihilism as a bad thing. Now, under a different guise it becomes a good thing. How? Because a cog in the machine changed? All of sudden the machine known as nihilism is something else? Know that I don't oppose active nihilism but am prone to it.

The use of the word activist creates an emotional response. If your sole purpose is to condemn a person and their work, then you are in fact engaging in theology. You created the existence of an evil. If you are calling something evil, then an ethical explanation is necessary so someone can understand your point. Calling it activist does not cut it. Repeating the same stereotype doesn't either.

Critique is not a condemnation. It never is. It's an exploration of one's views in relationship to your own. In a critique point out errors compared to your own reasoning, you don't call them names.

What word could you use? Pro-revolutionary is a start, but you are assuming that the individuals are unable to achieve revolution. This assumption must be agreed to in conversation. Or you have to prove that they can't achieve revolution, which is lot like trying to prove God exists. Holding a conversation with someone who does not agree to this assumption is pointless and condescending, unless you remain open the suggestion that your head can't, by any means, see everything. There is no crystal ball.

Call them left-anarchist or whatever. Use a term that both sides can agree too, otherwise it appears as an ad hominem.

The dichotomy of activist/whatever denies your own active role in suggesting your point of view. You could use "professional activist", though the emotional charge attached to such a term in an environment that eschews professional anything would not create dialogue. And that is why it is theological and ill thought out.

Frequently, IA types use alternate words for the same structures commune vs. affinity group vs. cell. Define it as you wish but they are collections of persons with similar goals. So, groups that are actively seeking something other than what is "now", is an activist group. Participants, whether it's on a website or a SDS chapter are activists.

"Wanting something qualitatively different than this existence certainly isn't something to condemn. However, I would agree that the mind-set of radical activism - a practice based on popularizing one's own values; an inevitably condescending and administrative practice - is something to avoid."

Popularizing ones values: there are no values at all that you wish to popularize? Why the hell do you roam across the internet with two cents if you are not looking for appeal?

"From the perspective of a conscious nihilist, all human valuations are baseless and only mere attempts to fill the void of meaninglessness that surrounds us." In this instance the Good is the perspective. Not mention the modifier "conscious."

"Nihilism, like anything else, is not inherently radical or 'anti-authoritarian'."

True, it's not inherently 'anti-authoritarian', it is however radical and a deviation from groupthink.

"For example, the general analysis of left anarchists is something like: the working class lacks 'correct' organizational forms, or perhaps organization all together, and so there's a need to introduce their organizational forms into the class and make them dominant."

This hasn't been true for a while. They are arguing in favor of already existing organizational forms rather alienating with newer forms. That's what Ryan Harvey is claiming: just because it can be called socialist/Democrat doesn't mean the working class doesn't like it. Coming out against these forms is an attack on various persons. Suggesting in any way that alternative forms of structure are more valid, is suggesting the working class lacks "correct forms."

"This is inherently an administrative position as it ignores the relation of radical organizations and individuals to the larger class, which is subject to an intellectual and ideological separation."

This is same point made about the IA types by left-anarchists.

"Rights are reified expressions of state power, not freedom."
You realize placing physical properties on freedom is reification?

"It could be described as a moral value, but I'm not expressing a universal and fundamental imperative."

Only when it comes to the State? Can you extrapolate on the role of the activist without giving into universals without passive voice?

"This is why activists think that every summit protest will herald the coming of insurrection, popular revolt, revolution, whatever. Our activities and ideas are inherently revolutionary, so it is only matter of time and accumulation..."

Most 'activists' are against summit protests; they want community.

"I never said I was better than anyone else. I stated that I like to think my opinion is better - that is, more developed - than most people I know."

If your opinion is better or more developed than most people you know, what is it about this developing that is better than others? What tool makes you more superior?

"Unless you think your opinion and ideas on the subject are more developed than my own! "

I have an innate ability to be a douche bag. My opinions are more graduated, as in, I have thought about these things longer. In time, I have become more agnostic. I think the tools I use are better, but I use all available tools and attack my personal philosophy every day. Incidentally, the critiques I give have been useful. Sometimes, people I know or have chatted with, rip my words into their own writings. If I can be useful in anyway in the development of personal autonomy, then I think I ought to share this and explain it's practice, as people did to me, as people did to them and so forth. Theory or philosophy or whatever, is never about staying stagnant, nearly all of your questions will never be answered. The only thing you can do is use these thoughts to figure out how deal with other people. This is why I always suggest the elimination of sacred texts. Letters are symbols and representation of thoughts. How they get there no one knows, for sure. Therefore, when engaging with anyone on anything, it is suggested that you try to find something that you can describe similarly and then debate it. If the terms are only on your own choosing, then you cater to sacred words. If I could pick out the best example of an IA secularist approach, online, it's HPWombat, who never, ever, assumes anything and asks a lot of questions.

What matters is that rights

What matters is that rights are reifications of state power, not that they're reifications. But that might have been an inappropriate aside -- a useless bit of nitpicking. You also presumed I was casting nihilism as a 'bad thing' on A-P. I wasn't. You seem intent on describing all opposition-to-things and love-for-things in the light of good vs evil. This is to say, you're shoving everything in a box and calling it an analysis. It's hard to argue with you when you just see everything as inevitably black and white due to some objective aspect of human understanding. Do all forms of antagonism inevitably become reducible to a matter of good vs evil? Are all subjective interpretations predicated on morality? I may be misunderstanding you. Sorry 'bout that if I am.

Theology is owing one's existence to divinity. The political activist owes their existence to revolution. The role of an activist is to prepare the revolution and revolutionary-becoming. Their mind is driven by it, like the Catechism of the Revolutionist is carving up their back with whips.

I will not submit to a divine event. I won't owe my life to ghosts.

"Popularizing ones values: there are no values at all that you wish to popularize? Why the hell do you roam across the internet with two cents if you are not looking for appeal?"

I come on here for feedback. I want to tear other people's ideas to pieces and have them tear mine in return. Being able to destroy something completely and have it stay dead is good. Like beating someone so bad you know they won't walk. Ever. Not that I would do such a thing to someone in an unprovoked manner; I just desire to destroy every presumption and popular idea in the anarchist milieu. I want to burn everything down and start all over again. Just like your need to engage in sacrilege against the mystification of literature and language. At the same time, I have an obsession with knowing things. I have to know a thing. Obviously this an impossibility. I want to understand capitalism and the state completely, even though I can't. I suppose it's a product of my inability to really focus on many things. I can only engage one thing at a time, and in an near-obsessive form. Otherwise, I get frustrated.

"So, groups that are actively seeking something other than what is "now", is an activist group."

All I'm seeing here is you shoving things in a box again. I understand activism as a specific thing. Not as a general description of discontent with society. Perhaps this what you were talking about when you said: "If the terms are only on your own choosing, then you cater to sacred words."

But then, if the words of holy texts (which is to say, all texts) only deserve sacrilege, then wouldn't that denote making them your own -- dirtying them on your own terms and whims? But regardless, I agree that it can be a pain in the ass when you have a discussion with someone and everything is of their own vocabulary. I really don't care about 'war-machines', 'bodies without organs', and 'desire-production'. Lacanian vocab is even more annoying than Deleuze and Guatarri. Am i rite?

"The use of the word activist creates an emotional response. If your sole purpose is to condemn a person and their work, then you are in fact engaging in theology. You created the existence of an evil. If you are calling something evil, then an ethical explanation is necessary so someone can understand your point. Calling it activist does not cut it. Repeating the same stereotype doesn't either."

That entirely depends on whether 'activist' is being used as a loaded word or not, and also on the person interpreting it's use and the statements surrounding it. I may use it as a loaded word sometimes, but that is just antagonism and annoyance speaking. Activism is a tangible and popular practice among radicals of all types. I think it's entirely religious. So, I'm going to attack it. The most popular practice among anarchists today is predicated on two things:

1. The presumptuous valuation that radical's belief in revolution makes them capable of catalyzing such an event, as well as knowing what lies beyond it. This is a mystification, which only serves as a bullshit means to reproduce the organization of activists and their ideology. Similar to how militants reify some great and awesome struggle against a relentless evil that requires sacrificial decisions and militaristic force in order to defeat. This mystification only serves to reproduce what lies behind it in a cyclical effect. Armed cadres only ever rob banks to buy more guns.

2. The popularization of that belief is what every activist project and activity is predicated on. Of course, the world isn't watching. The world doesn't give a damn about you.

"Or you have to prove that they can't achieve revolution, which is lot like trying to prove God exists."

That's not my intention. My intention is to tear down their mystifications and introduce humility. I don't think I've ever said 'we can't achieve revolution'. I have said 'you're not a revolutionary'. That is nothing like proving God exists (or doesn't exist); it's like telling the cocky kid they're a fuck-up. But personally, I really don't give a damn about revolution right now. I won't give a damn about it until it's staring me in the face and breathing hard. I've always been a procrastinator. Of course, some would say something like, "we won't get there unless you do something". Fuck 'em.

'Pro-revolutionary' doesn't assume you can't achieve revolution. It's telling you to put up or shut up.

In retrospect, constructing

In retrospect, constructing an archetype to condemn and attack constantly is a bit sinister, huh? Which it appears is what I am doing. I'm going to let that bake in ma' oven for awhile. Thanx for pointing that out.

But nevertheless, my critique of activism will continue.

It depends on what you want

It depends on what you want to do. But, I can tell you that two sides drawing guns over theory is bit odd. It's not debate anymore, it's as if Enlightenment is trying to murder Pragmatists. And these roles switch depending on the time of day.

Well hold on there, buddy

Well hold on there, buddy boy. What's all this about I@ vs left-anarchists? My critique of activism isn't relegated to left anarchism. There's plenty of I@ shit being thrown around that I see as activist. Not to mention the ridiculous militancy fetishes...

Desiring revolution and acting on those desires still does not make a revolution methinks. As pretty as self-interest is, I would reckon it's no more revolutionary than pure altruism.

I have no stake in any of the feuds brewing among the anarchist milieu. In fact, I have no stake in the milieu entirely. Well, apart from what my own boredom demands my participation in.

And yes, there are 'goods' and 'bads' in my perspective, as there are in most people's. This is what I was talking about earlier, when I said moral value is inevitable. But moral value does not inherently translate into morality, in my opinion.

Morality makes universal imperatives. It consolidates subjectivity into objectivity. This is to say, it makes individual interpretation appear as something independent of the human mind entirely, and perhaps even fundamental to the coherency of human relations (as if they ever had any)!

Quotage from wikipedia (says it in a clearer way): "A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."[1]

Of course, generally that just translates into the object that has earned and produced anarchists hostility, huh? This is to say, authority, hierarchy, etc. I suppose at the end of the day, the critique of morality only successfully points out that all authority on Earth is only and can only ever be legitimized through moral value. That is, it is entirely baseless and made up. Back to 101...

"It's not debate anymore, it's as if Enlightenment is trying to murder Pragmatists."

Yeah, socialist-realism and enlightenment values are boring, huh?

Oh, and your sentiments on anti-ideology are exactly like mine. Agnosticism is the way to go on that one. Fo' sho'!

"But, I can tell you that two sides drawing guns over theory is bit odd."

It all comes down to the question of revolution. Each side thinks they have a more appropriate strategy for becoming-revolution. It's an entirely theological debate. My critique of activism is not geared towards winning a victory for either side. I do it only for my own sake, and perhaps even for the sake of saving some people from the frustration and misery of organizing, protesting, bailing out, organizing, protesting, bailing out, etc.

"Do all forms of antagonism

"Do all forms of antagonism inevitably become reducible to a matter of good vs evil? Are all subjective interpretations predicated on morality?"

It really depends on who you ask! To many feminists, antagonism is a (white) male practice. In the interest of overthrowing patriarchy is male behavior evil?

There is no correct answer to this, it would have to hinge on what reasons you felt an object was "bad." However, would agree that there are Goods and Bads in your personal world? In relation to the original point I made, separation from something because it is undesirable is an indication of a "Bad." My point in the logical error uncovering was this spurious notion that people aren't prone to good vs. bad. It's almost as if people are afraid and desperate to make some sort of appeal. "No! I'm not ideological!" Why is this even relevant? This argument has turned into and anti-ideological-athon to see who raise the most anti-ideological capital for some anti-ideological bank. But if people are going to keep using this slur, can there at least be something behind it?
Sure, I don't like ideology. But, it doesn't mean I'm not prone to that. Do you know how long it took for anti-I anarchists to admit this for themselves? There's no vacuum to work in.

"Theology is owing one's existence to divinity."
It also ignores any debate that God exists. It's assumed God exists and so any logic that can be derived from it must rest on it's own doctrine. It's not a shared assessment between believers and unbelievers. It's not open, you either agree or you are not allowed.

"That's not my intention. My intention is to tear down their mystifications and introduce humility. I don't think I've ever said 'we can't achieve revolution'. I have said 'you're not a revolutionary'."

Whaha! Burn Churches! However, when entering into discussion, the role of the person introducing humility will always be seen as an aggressor. I guess, this is my other central point for either the IA or the left-anarchists. What is it that you are trying to do? This intense fighting from both sides is seriously irritating. It almost always rests on use of language and some bizarre fight for dominant voice in the milieu.

"Lacanian vocab is even more annoying than Deleuze and Guatarri."

Lacan is my man, y'know? Putting things into boxes, symbology and logic helps to understand the underlying themes. It's difficult and alienating but recognizing things as fantasy produced as symbols and that every person will have their interpretation, so they ought to come to some common identifiers. Why the turn to people talking over one another that is common? It's all about human relationships for me.

As for making things their own, and I know I am one of the chief apologists of this: I can only suggest that you use this to your benefit. The other day, someone was prattling on about some post-Marxist thinker and said "But I don't really like them." That's not really the point. Theoretically, you aren't supposed to like any of these cult leaders, but appreciate them.

If your use of a word is to demean, then that's the goal. If the point is to engage in discussion, I'd suggest that you use it to your benefit. Whether to demean or discuss figure out what that beneficial property is, because in my opinion, this fucking "They are so alienating!" bit is a little old and is turning into some bizarre game to see who can say it the most.

EDIT *However, would YOU

EDIT

*However, would YOU agree that there are Goods

i think this is an

i think this is an interesting point. i think it's at the heart of a conundrum in anarchist thought.
anarchists do think that we know better than others (as does anyone who has a vision for how the world should be), but at the same time we don't want to rule others (or be ruled either, of course). how do we commit to our ideas and desires, without imposing badly on others? affinity groups are part of an answer (joining with people who agree with us about significant things) but that doesn't address how we deal with the larger context. isolation/insulation is another tactic but that falters when we consider actually making dramatic change in society (imposing our will on people who disagree with us). so we talk about a) people don't really disagree with us (a la crimethinc) and b) we can/should educate people to agree with us (a la organizers everywhere). insurrectionists and some green anarchists kind of side step the issue by saying that fundamental change isn't even up to us, because it's going to happen regardless. (hard to argue with that, of course.)

How do we seek to eliminate

How do we seek to eliminate coercion of the person who wants to be a fascist. How do we deal with infinite autonomous persons who accept the system. When we set ourselves apart, what does that say about others autonomous thoughts?

http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/VI,2,11-12-2000/Crosby.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy

... also, when you don't

... also, when you don't break from the standard, you are claiming to have no dreams.

why do i always come back to the question of "what kind of monster do you want to be"?!
child's guide to nihilism FTW

Nihilist Communism, The

Nihilist Communism, The Coming Insurrection and Endnotes are the three best anarchist/communist/anti-political/ultra-left books of the last year to be published in english. Completely different, in fact contradictory and opposed to each other in numerous ways, these three texts have more thought, analysis and relevance than any and every zine, article, report, magazine, or journal to come out in the anarchist milieu in the last decade. People need to stop putting out quantities of shit and starting writing and reading quality texts like these, which can be read multiple time, critiqued, incorporated, and challenged in meaningful ways and not just adding the same stale analysis to whatever new thing pops up.

Willful Disobedience, War On

Willful Disobedience, War On Misery, Murder of Crows.

without articulating how our

without articulating how our theoretical ideas interact with real world events ("whatever new thing pops up") you might as well pitch a tent in the library and consign yourself to irrelevance, and even worse, not being able to articulate a praxis.

"without articulating how

"without articulating how our theoretical ideas interact with real world events ("whatever new thing pops up") you might as well pitch a tent in the library and consign yourself to irrelevance, and even worse, not being able to articulate a praxis."

this i am in agreeance with, at least in terms of effective strategy.

Everything is a religion

Everything is a religion subjectively viewed,the ego can worship money,gods or chemicals.It is this absurd optimisism,seeing adults frolicking like naive 7yr olds,or walking the imposed pathways of the manicured authoritarian gardens,where weeds are banished,and a dogshit is never seen,let alone smelled or stepped on.Where are all the distasteful things we so much enjoy despite their repulsivness?.Our sensuality has been hijacked by the optimistic,hygenic fakes that desire perfect egos!Everything will NOT be alright!

that's great, but that does

that's great, but that does nothing for me or the others in my city who struggle to survive day to day.

we have plenty of garbage and shit on our streets. we know things won't be okay. that's why we either try to escape to middle class life, do drugs, kill ourselves, or turn our agency over to God or experts to tell us what we should do.

your comments don't help me have a place to live or food to eat, so why should i give a shit? please, tell me.

because this is what i am asked every time i go out in my community to struggle to change things.

The suggestion that you are

The suggestion that you are endowed with special powers to change things is an incredibly. What makes you so unique that you think you ought to go out and change things?

This is why so many IA are focusing on their own spaces and their own shit. You can only do what you can do. When you try to look further, you end up making associations with people who don't have your best interests in mind.

All identities are important, esp. your own. You as much as anyone has inner desire to survive. If you can, then you should help out someone else, even possibly open up your space to others, but your life should not be dependent on the salvation of others. There's a great deal to say on the topic of the person who thinks they must save everything and everyone through change.

You are an anarchist. Not a superhuman.

-veranasi

This may describe autonomous

This may describe autonomous isolation from a collective salvationist goal,or opposition to an extremist messianic cult.And well,,, this IS what we are living in the midst of today,in the 21st century,a technological eschatological ethos.To maintain ones sense of independent wellbeing it takes very little if there is room enough,but overpopulation is another rave.
It is ironic that good and bad have been interposed.Good is now generally considered to be the uniform homogenised lifestyle free of desease,hunger and discomfort,all very desirable states,but oh so efficiently organised,AND still managing the efficient mass destruction of biospheres,species etc and participating in the mass-murder of millions of people,or enslaving them,to perpetuate the myth of,,,a future good,a salvation from present woes.
Our friend who wanders the decrepit streets of his community is like many of us,,,not walking in the engineered manicured garden defined and valued as good.The ethics and values are merely objective distractions,metaphysically and materially.As you explained,we are not superhuman.

This was very vague and

This was very vague and general,but for the nihilist,'goodness' and 'badness' do not exist,they are abstract moralistic beliefs to satisfy a subjective hunger for order,self-esteem and a motive for symbolic values,,,prerequisites for those living within any society who lack an autonomous self-reliance,and who prefer the yoke of security culture.This is paying protection,and the priests and rulers run the protection racket.Thus,a subjective desire to embrace the objective metaphysical and material distractions stems from fear,from a personal inadequancy to live unfettered by rules or a safety barrier,a symptom of Judeo-Christian culture!.
A true nihilist,if defined as one who lives outside of societies moral impositions and restraints,resembles most likely the nomadic hunter/gatherer clans,that have no diety,and observe only instinctual imperatives,and do not premeditatively project or express a rule of order or conduct.If one nihilist was to say,"Dont go into the forest over there,there is a fucking big bear in there" is neither an ethical belief or authoritarian command,it is simply advice.The conflation that exists between what people misconstrue as moralistic control and instinctual fact is one of the most contentious issues confusing most anarchists today,so much so that the mere deed becomes a complex debate about the 'ethical legality' of the 'deed'.Such baggage does not concern the nihilist,a spontaneity is paramount,to lose it is to succumb to the oppressor!
There are very few true nihilists today in western society,a personal vision or awareness of 'no rules'is shrouded within the fog of decency and correctness,not in an honesty or politeness to fellow travellers.

YEAH!

YEAH!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.