On the historical Commune Vs Individual rift that cannot be resolved

1 post / 0 new
anon (not verified)
On the historical Commune Vs Individual rift that cannot be resolved

Appelistes just like previous communists -and like many other tendencies- see the group as the base social unit. But the belief of individualists is that the individual, namely, is the base social unit, from which relations may arise. Anarchists are still in a blur in between.

One of these views is delusional. Guess which.

Communards see or idealize themselves as part of a community Magma of con-fused, flattened, interdependent relations, and interrelations. I see many problems with such view, and I won't be dong another rant about these; what's more important to consider is that this Magma is an imagined community. When Julien, Yildune and Co called the Party "Imaginary"... I always wondered to what extent they're self-conscious about it, or do we have just here a smoking guns?

The friends are, undeniably, a thing; the Friends are not.

Not that some relationships comprised are not real and organic. But these more or less tenuous relationships are iced, sugared by this communitarian pipedream that is inherently identitarian just like a TV sports team or religion. Like in social media ID pols, it seeks to erase every person's individual existence and experience in the favor of the group identity. Therefore the individuals -now components, members, singularities- are expected to merge with the memetic hive mind, conform to the group think. Just like with other cults, those of weak or still-developing personality, or those with desperate need for group support, will easily get sucked in. Those who're used to be on their own, or with self-determined personalities will predictably clash with these group formations at some point.

When claiming that "the historical Commune Vs Individual rift cannot resolved", I am not contributing to the reinforcement of a social divide, of further isolation between these social entities. I am not asserting the individual as a solipsist island! We are more like viruses, in fact... connecting and disconnecting to/from other individuals due a myriad of compatible properties and sensibilities.

I am neither asserting any grouping as a self-absorbed exclusive family. But the Commune, here, just like many other religious, often cultish groupings, is stuck together with a cement that only maintains this binary divide. In other words, I am not defending this divide.... the Commune is defending it, by negating the Individual's existence, and refusing to abandon their MODEL of political branding and narrative-building. No individual rejects relating to other living beings, and the belief of solipsists of perfect individial autonomy is a kind of hypocrisy, as while we are not Dividuals fused to others 24/7 as the Communards would like us to believe, our lives flourish in relation to others, and fundamentally we are dependent on the rest of nature to live. Individuals can claim autonomy from a group of humans, yet they can't claim autonomy from nature.

Let's admit that we -including I- also tend to use impersonal infrastructure or institutions to relate to others, as the "second nature" that is society (that's how Marx used to call, somehow adequately, the economy). Yet these, especially those non-autonomous organs, being subjected to external regulations, are problematic and provide with only superficial level of human intercourse, that can be often alienating (and in the context of Covid measures got taken from us altogether). So this is where anarchist infrastructure, to me, are so important for the development of liberated and liberating interactions between individuals. As they create openings that other social arrangements won't.

But the Commune, as a tribal, family-group construct interposes itself as an alternative in between these depersonalized institutions and the individual atomized by mass society. A fake alternative.

The Commune is essentially exclusive, by design, formed through an in-out pattern. So the blame/responsibility for the divide cannot be thrown at the Individual. The group is the one that excludes, the individual can only seclude themself. But seclusion is not dividing, it is only distancing.

It's my persisting belief that humans will not evolve if they remain stuck in these old communitarian, tribal patterns that deny every person's (and every being's) experience, outside of the big group taxonomies and categories. Perhaps, sadly, they won't. Perhaps they are forever doomed to being prisoners of the imaginary community.

Tho if you want to get over it, "we" need to change our approach and narrative when it comes to relating to others. This also starts with redefining, reinventing ourselves.

Back in the 19th century the Overman and the Unique have been found, at least as becomings. I am for pursuing this revolutionary path.

Fite me or don't.

- Fauvenoir

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.