/dead/ - dead

>>1246
*/dead.
sorry, i dont use this board often

you don't convince someone to become a post-leftist

they become one on their own when they're ready for it

>>1248
am i ready? how do i become ready?

>>1249
Read The Wandering of Humanity by Jacques Camatte (it's pretty short) and see if it speaks to you

a first step would be to stop turning your political/philosophical views into an identity i.e. trying to "be post-left"

>>1246
> why i should be a post leftist rather then a regular one
If you want an honest answer, it's mostly because regular anarchists are still stuck in the 20th or 19th century. The ancoms or syndicalists haven't updated their conceptions of the working class or capitalism at all - these things just don't exist in the same form anymore that was criticized by traditional anarchists back in the day. Also, with the steps made in post-structuralism, asking why we shouldn't abolish all hierarchies instead of only unjustified ones is a given that regular anarchists just never adressed.
The worker-/organisation- based strategies of the left just don't work anymore. Insurrection has to replace revolution.

>>1261
insurrection is so last century, get on the marxist-cartelist meth-cult train faggot

>>1261
Lul people were saying this just 10 years after the October Revolution. And yet we've had so many since.

>>1267
Neither the russian revolution, nor the revolutions in China or Cuba, nor the evens facilitating socialist control in east Germany, Vietnam and North Korea were proletarian/socialist revolutions in the marxist sense. A proletarian revolutions is, according to Marx, a political uprising by the working class with the explicit goal of control over the means of production and the abolishment of the bourgeoisie and capitalism. None have the named revolutions, as well as any other revolutions, have these characteristics.
In Russia the ppl wanted to end the war and the Tsar, not capitalism.
In China the ppl wanted a national rebirth away from the fash traitors.
In Cuba the ppl wanted to be free from US influence and the rule of Batista.
The GDR came into being as a results of WW2.
In Vietnam and Korea the ppl fought for national independence.
None of these revolutions were carried out with the goal of abolishing capitalism or working class emancipation. That's because 'class counsciounes' as marxists and social/leftist anarchists use it is not or not anymore a thing.
Marx's view of the proletariat as the class to overthrow capitalism, a revolutionary subject in the development of socio-economic relations, was based on the fact that:
a) The proletariat has the power to disrupt capitalist production (since they are necessary for it)
b) That this is in theri interest because capitalist relations are relastions under which the working class suffers economic misery.
In our modern relations, none of these factors still hold true. Concerning a), the majority of the western working class is no longer employed in productive (industrial) labor, but much more often part of the service sector. Cpitalist relations can with no problem continue without the service sector, so the majority of working class is NO LONGER necessary for capitalist production. Concerning b), it has become obvious to anyone with a brain at this point that the stabilising forces of imperialism (creating space for an inner middle class based on the exploitation of foreign nations) have bribed the working class into complacency. The average worker sees communist revolutions as more of a threat than his employer.

Besiders, class consciousnes has always been a joke. If you see that differently, please define it for me and show how it has ever been a factor.

>>1268
class consciousness is when workers do what i want

t. marx

>>1268
bro, what the hell are you talking about?
the russian revolution was very much "proletarian/socialist in the marxist sense", the problem is that socialism as envisioned by marx has been the mirror image of capitalism from the start, just like the proletariat is the mirror image of the bourgeoisie. this is also the reason why the proletariat isn't revolutionary. it has nothing to do with the service sector being irrelevant to capitalist production (wtf?) or that third-worldist bullshit about superexploitation.

>>1270
>bro, what the hell are you talking about?
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/monsieur-dupont-nihilist-communism

>the russian revolution was very much "proletarian/socialist in the marxist sense"
again, how? ppl tend to just assuem it bc it ended up with the bolsheviks in power, but their move into that position was in no way carried by mass action of a counscious proletariat. Their relevant strike at the power, the removal of the provisionary government, was a soley power-political action. It was completly removed from any class that could be counscious to begin with (aside from the fact that such a class also didnt exist in russia)

>the problem is that socialism as envisioned by marx has been the mirror image of capitalism from the start
I really disagree with this hard. I have heard this many times to, but to me there is no strutural grounds to base this on and the whole 'mirror-dialectic' just seems like too simple of an explanational emplate to me.
The idea that Marx's view of communism mirrors his concept of capitalism (in that one is simply an extension of the other, same categories and all) is already based more on the Leninist interpretation of Marx than Marx himself. Obviously the inteded picture is that of the Proletariat as the ruling class of communism mirroring the bourgeoisie as the ruling class of capitalism. But this is not correct. I don't have alot of love left for Marx, but the critique of him should still be precise.
Communism doesn't have a ruling class. And I don't mean that in the Leninist sense of: 'There is no ruling class because there is only the working class that rules itself, or implicitly, the vanguard of the class that rules', I mean in in the sense, as Marx did, that the category of class and political rule removed. Communism can't be the mirror of capitalism in a Marxist sense because for Marx Capitalism and Communism weren't part of the same dialectic (like they, again, are in the Leninist, ML, maoist and modern 'ancom' view), but the negation, the end, of the dialectic that capitalism and feudalism were a part of. The proletariat is in communism not it's own master, it doesn't exist, and human individuals are their own master. There are no categories this socio-economic conception has in common with capitalism.

Question on the side: have you read Marx in English or another translation?

>>1270
The Russian "revolution" was a coup where Trotsky's henchmen ousted the Provisional Government. It was maybe Blanquist, but certainly not Marxist.

>>1271
Lenin introduced the terminology of a distinct "socialism" and "communism" but Marx himself have already talked about a "lower stage of communism" based on labour vouchers that would smuggle privation into communism, and with that a ruling class. /leftypol/ loves this because they hate communism. I don't know about modern anarcho-communists but Kropotkin rightly pointed out how stupid this was in the meme book.

>>1278
to me the seperation of higher and lower tier communism as different stages never made sense because marx use hegelian dialectics, lower phace communism was simply communism in the becoming

Are we anti-work in general? I know a lot of MLs like to shit on us for this, but I think work itself, even under Socialism, is undesirable.

>>1280
can't speak for others, but yes, I think 'the right to work' is extreme bs and would never partake in any work if it went against my personal desires.
whoever sais this is against worker emancipation has a strange definition of agency.

>>1281
Also, something that actually came to mind.

/leftypol/ likes to associate Egoists as "Ayn Rand tier libertarians" which never made sense to me at all. We recognize the exploitative nature of Capitalism, recognize the spooks of private property, oppose reactionary elements and other far right spooks as well. But here's the deal, when you consider it, Capitalists are actually living the best possible lives under the current system, so would it not make sense for a worker to become one himself? Isn't that under his own rational economic interest? Wouldn't that be far better to just not work at all rather than work under Socialism?

Also something else that I thought about from an Egoist perspective, what if the best course of approach here is to accept Capitalism and Private property and use those towards your benefit to look out for yourself and achieving anti-work utopia for yourself? Isn't that a better choice? I found it contradicts the beliefs in that comprise Post Leftism first place, what do you think?

>>1282
>But here's the deal, when you consider it, Capitalists are actually living the best possible lives under the current system,
A capitalist is still a slave to capital, they are not free. Sure, there are capitalists who remove themselves from the actual dealings of their enterprises, but that level is not realisticly reachable.
Of course I get what you are on about, but the main reason this just doesn't seem viable to me is that I want to do alot of stuff that simply isn't productive (reading 200 year old obscure philosophy for example). Also I don't think anyone of us would be here if we weren't attracted to egalitarian ideas and didn't cherish the thought of solidarity to some extent. I wouldn't even wanna exploit people to the point I could make a luxurious living out of it, they are just to dear to me.

>what if the best course of approach here is to accept Capitalism and Private property and use those towards your benefit to look out for yourself and achieving anti-work utopia for yourself?
Simple answer is that if you feel like that is what fulfills your desires, if it makes you happy, than I think that's totally valid.

>>1283
B-But private property is a spook, right?

>>1283
How can we be truly work free without exploiting someone else?

>>1285
illegal action

>>1286
…What?

>>1280
personally i think the word "work" is super tainted
like a core part of my radicality is my hatred of wage labor and alienated commodity relations, but that has nothing to do with labor or "working" to meet my needs. Nothing like the ml/ancom/market-soc/unionist view like "oh its not work anymore now that we're in power, yayyyyy! >goes back to the factory and is paid a little more or less, depending on the "material conditions" or "commitment to the revolutionary project"", like i cant fucking stand these kinds of "leftists" that just want capitalism but with them slightly wealthier and their moral problems with it eased and magically being less lonely. So i dont mean that kind of work, but like i love doing physical and mental labor on shit, really i think most people are, or would be minus maladaptive fear of failure or aversion caused by shitty wage labor or having to cater to authorities' desires often without even knowing what they are. So thats how i feel about it
fuck "under socialism" tho, that kinda means fuck all to me. I dont care about "creating socialism", i just wanna not have to do wage labor and help other people get out too, without like winning the lottery or something, you know like keeping an ethical position i can stomach and also not needing to do wage labor in a way thats likely in the real world, so yeah i agree fuck work
ive seen some people take anti-work though to mean shit like "the robots are gonna be my handmaids and make all my shit and ill have capitalist style neet life but with no guilt/instability", and others who just wanna live in the woods and fuck
well i guess the second option is pretty sane, but yknow i think both rely on idealizations of future not-existing transhu life and past never-existed primmie life. Other nerds want to just be an oogle basically and also fuck that, like wanting to just mooch off society and your friends and be the dirty leech that ppl tend to see anti-work as. Like anything ppl can do to get out of work, i understand and have sympathy for, but damn some ppl really be on some "im owed a comfy existance by society/nature/my mom" mentality and i dont really fuck with that specifically, i wanna make it possible for myself and others to live without the precarity and indignities and self-alienation of capitalist/industrial/post-industrial work

>>1282
for 99% of ppl even in the first world its not as simple as just "achieving anti-work utopia for yourself"
even richass fuckers have to work tons for what they have, you'd be better off sizing down and living simple like vagabonding and selling drugs to kids or something than trying to raise yourself all the way up the ladder to where you can finally retire young and do nothing and live off other people's work.

>>1279
But Marx used it and advocated the labour voucher nonsense, so it is fair to criticize him for it.

>>1282
Capitalists are still domesticated by Capital. Read 'The Right To Be Greedy'

>>1261
> with the steps made in post-structuralism, asking why we shouldn't abolish all hierarchies instead of only unjustified ones is a given that regular anarchists just never adressed.

i never held that "only unjustified hierarchies" view

>>1271
>>1278
ok, let me get this straight: you don't recognize any of the 20th century's revolutions as legitimately proletarian/marxist/whatever but in theory you [b]do[/b] still believe in revolution. but then you turn around and deny the (western?) proletariat's revolutionary character based on essentially leninist conceptions (imperialism, super-profits, aristocracy of labour)? to me this sounds unnecessarily confused and just leaves you in this limbo of missed historical opportunity instead of just facing the fact that the very idea of "proletarian revolution" was doomed from the start and looking for another way out.

>>1294
>but in theory you do still believe in revolution.
Revolutions are something that ahve taken place in reality and pobably will continue to take place. I don't think that any revolution will ever succeed in ending alienation and creating a society of emancipated indiviuals, although they might be steps in that direction. Ultimatly the indiviual has to realise itself to be free and this is a question seperated from social revolution.

>the fact that the very idea of "proletarian revolution" was doomed from the start
If you mean this in the functional sense, that proletarian revolution would never lead to emancipation and abolihsment of all hierarchies, I would agree. But I would also argue that there is no possible revolution that could facilitate that, so to me proletarian revolutions don't or didn't fail, they comepletly fulfilled all expectations one could realisticly have for them. They just don't suffice.

>>1284
Just because its a spook doesnt mean shit bruh. You are free to use it as you see fit as long as you posses it and not the other way around.
Spooks in general are just "holy" ideas, ones that can not be overturned and ones that serce itself, not you

Should I study the classical anarchists (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc.) before I start with the reading list?

>>1446
You don't really need to. I'd say the most important of the classical anarchists for the "post-left" would be Emma Goldman. Proudhon and Bakunin have aged rather poorly, but Kropotkin is alright I guess.

>>1446
it's worth it to have some background of leftist political lit first, but other than that you shouldnt need any background in anarchist thought from any time

>>1446
anarchist "theory" isn't a canon of works, just pick and choose whatever interests you. the ideological supermarket is only fit for looting etc.

>>1474
Why did you put theory in quotes?

>>1477
cause he thinks anarchist theroy is shit probably

>>1491
It could also be a response to the Marxist fetishization of Theory with a capital T. We can guess all day.

>>1477
>>1491
>>1495
despite being an anarchist, I find the concept of "anarchist theory" to be kind of laughable. Anarchism doesn't really have anything that I'd say could be called theory in the sense that Marxists use it, unless you count like Deleuze/Nietzsche/Stirner. But even then, unlike with Marxism, anarchism has never had any kind of academic foothold where there's a coherent/cohesive body of work where labeling it as "anarchist" has any meaningful content to it aside from whatever the given thinker may have identified themselves as (or what they could be read as supporting). Marxism has a theoretical metholodgy, anarchism is looser and more open-ended, which isn't a bad thing. It's just different from the intellectual hegemony that marxist theory and the canon of marxist theory has.

>>1505
– and it tends to feel like anarchists trying to be like "we have theory too though!" is just a repetition of the same tendency anarchism has always had to want to be taken seriously by marxists and compete with marxism instead of recognizing that anarchism is different from marxism and should lean on its strengths

>>1505
>unlike with Marxism, anarchism has never had any kind of academic foothold
thank the lord, academics are the death nail of every revolutionary idea

>>1505
>>1508
marxism and anarchism live very comfortably in tandem throughout academia stop acting like there is a meaningful difference

>>1505
But we have theories, just because they don't take a religious form, like Marxism, does not mean they are any worse, on the contrary. Marxists don't have theory, they have theology.

>>1509
I would disagree. Obviously there are anarchists in academia, like Greaber for example, but actual anarchist theory is far less likely to be taught. Marx on the other hand is part about every course on power politics or political economy. Obviously that is because those fields were largely influenced by Marx, but it also lead to marxism becomming this much more abstract, fixed notion.

>>1509
yeah this >>1515

the fact that there are academics who are incidentally anarchist doesn't mean that anarchism is taken seriously by academia, generally speaking, or that it is typically in the canon of critical theory.

>>1512
you're missing the point. "theory" is a technical term here, it doesn't have anything to do with whether anarchists have had abstract systematic ideas, certainly some have (to their detriment I'd argue). "theory' is a pedagogical term (that is, critical theory) that exists in the context of there being a canon of works that various texts are made a part of by a hegemony of intellectuals who have had the influence and authority throughout history to say what does or does not comprise the canon. which obviously is at odds with the whole project of anarchism, even setting aside the fact that anarchist writings are seldom, if ever, considered a part of that canon by any academics or intellectuals.

that doesn't devalue them, quite the contrary. anarchists shouldn't strive to compete with marxists on their own turf if anarchists are against the concept in the first place of hierarchy and authority, both of which are pretty fundamental not only to academia as a structure but also to pretty much everything that has been admitted into the canon of theory. belief systems that have a systematic, top-down theory of everything are less adaptive, tend to accrue more legacy problems and more dogmatism, and aren't supposed to be made use of without subscribing to the entire belief system.

anarchism on the other hand, or at least the thinkers that I think are the most interested in philosophical foundations that are useful to anarchism (Deleuze/Nietzsche/Stirner/etc.), should be treated more like a toolbox of ideas that can be used as building blocks to form concepts that don't hold any kind of special power over you (aren't "spooks" if you're a Stirnerite), but can just as easily be discarded whenever they stop being useful. furthermore, unlike with something that can be called theory, an anarchist should be willing to make use of ideas from anything that might be useful to them, not just necessarily things that are labeled as anarchist within some imagined canon of anarchism (remember that Stirner, Nietzsche, and Deleuze never even called themselves anarchists, and Nietzsche actually was highly critical of anarchism). this to me is why anarchism doesn't have, or at least shouldn't have, something resembling theory, which might be a bit of an autistic pedantry over the definitions of words, but nevertheless the tendency anarchists have to want to compete with marxists and say "we have theory too!" just misses the point of anarchism as far as I'm concerned and ends up producing a shittier form of marxism. certainly ancoms are the most guilty of that.

>>1515
Marx is taught in a very sterilized and superficial way. Not to be arrogant, but the ideas in marxism are very complex and very broad. Nowadays, the best a university can hope to teach students is the conclusion of marxist analysis in a simplified form. Usually the proletariat-bourgeoisie divide and class struggle. Maybe LTV if you're lucky. Other things, for example the role of the environment in how people think and act etc, has already been rehashed and integrated into liberal academia (in this case, it has been integrated in the form of urbanism and other similar areas of research). Learning about conclusions from marxist analysis, rather than the theory behind it, is as useless as rote memorization of atomic numbers.

Anarchism is not taught at all, as far as I'm aware. Our ML org tries to incorporate anarchist theory into our program, but it's mostly old school stuff like Emma Goldman, Kropotkin, Occalan, or other historic local anarchists. Deleuze etc are just out of the question. That shit is waaay too complex to teach.

>>1521
>>1523
Isn't Deleuze part of the critical theory canon though?

something that bothered me recently, are capitalists and liberals who benefit from the system basically just egoists? when you think of it they are actually just looking out for their own self interests, living a life that the majority of people on earth could only hope to live. anything else is just moralfag cope, why should they care about the environment or other shit when they can practically live off their life without worries and be done with it?

am i bad for being selfish even if it means exploiting others? at least i'm not being exploited right? why do i care?

something that bothered me recently, are capitalists and liberals who benefit from the system basically just egoists? when you think of it they are actually just looking out for their own self interests, living a life that the majority of people on earth could only hope to live. anything else is just moralfag cope, why should they care about the environment or other shit when they can practically live off their life without worries and be done with it?

am i bad for being selfish even if it means exploiting others? at least i'm not being exploited right? why do i care?

>>1743
>>1744
being rich is miserable too

>>1748
at least you don't have to worry about material shit anymore

>>1749
then you have to worry about how to manage all your material shit. don't get me wrong being poor is definitely worse but there's no happiness to be found under capitalism.

>>1744
Why do you care if they are egoists or not? They don't magically become part of your union of egoists just for appearing to act in their own self-interest. What you should look out for is people who act in your self-interest.

>>1757
>Why do you care if they are egoists or not?
because i like to hear non moralfag justifications for the way things are

>>1751
alternative: happiness is a choice an can be found anywhere, if youre willing to be a meditation slut

>>1758
I don't get it. But if you have read Stirner, he wrote about how most people tend to approximate the egoist but feel guilty about it afterwards, he called them "involuntary egoists".

>>1760
nice cope

>>1744
they are egoists in the same wane as everyboy is an egoist, but they are usually still spooked.
owning capital comes with its own norms you have to adhere to to be talking seriously by others capitalists or that are simply the result of how accumulation works. Just because they are benefiting from class domination doesnt mean they are not integrated in the class structure and thus tend to live not as unique egos, but as capitalists and liberals.