/dead/ - dead

Seems you didn't get anything you read and decided you wanted to be an edgy individualist. That's pretty much the profile we're looking for.

Welcome.

>>798
That is the conclusion most people make but I tend to disagree, is it really so strange of me to agree with some things he wrote but disagree on others, especially when much of what he wrote is historical? (relates to the period he lived in)

>>797
this is the board for anarchists who call anarcho-commies authoritarian, so no, go suck a dick you spooked ultra cucl

>>800
it says post left, where does it say anarchy specifically?

>>799
What things are no longer relevant?
Nazbol is a meme ideology.
It isn't even coherent if you live in NATO countries.

>>802
I don't live in a NATO country. NATO bombed my country.

marxes conclusion that the prole was the revolutionary subject was correct at the time and in relation to pre-fordist and post-fordist capitalism, but is incorrect today because we are switching to a post-fordist consumerist economy, overproduction and industrial efficiency is such that most workers are service workers and it is a global trend in switching to service workers. Marx generalized (it was a correct generalization) and when he spoke of proles he was talking about industrial workers, which made up like 98% of the proletariat back then. Overall I disagree with marxes accelerationism and think it inherently leads to capitalism, I think there is a point at which the machine (capital) becomes faster than man and man only starts to weigh the machine down, while communism is an inherently humanist ideology. I have more but I don't feel like making a nokpost, maybe this is better.

>>803
As to why I became nazbol, I came to Nick Land's conclusions but I want to regress. The fact that the machine/capital is progress and forward is a bad thing, we need a return to humanism. Postmodern culture, ideology and society are all capitalist in origin, these new values are the values of capitalism and the left happily adopted them out of progressivism. Leftists just want the present state of things but with a socialist economy, they are like 90's eastern blockers who wanted to keep the boons of their socialist states while getting the western culture and consumerism. I think there needs to be a return to a modernistic, futuristic system of values and culture.

One smaller reason that is still important to me is the fact that the left has a bad understanding of nations and countries, they often conflate nations with states while they are very different things. Reading capital and then hegelians has unironically made me a nationalist when before I was libleft. But I am not racist or chauvinist, I just want the best for my nation, and I think the best is a new communism.

>>804
I sometimes forget people want to forge their own snowflake identity-political ideology as if that political ideology is what is going to be implemented when socialism is established.

Just be a non-sectarian leftist. Anything else is superfluous. The non communist at the end do the bulk of the work, communist are only there to stoke the fire and nudge it in a more productive direction.

But sure, if you want to make the perfect socialist system in your head that's understandable. If you want to reject modern society, that's also understandable, it sucks. If you disagree with most socialists, welcome to the club, that's like step 1 of being a leftist.

>>805
This society isn't modern. It is postmodern, contemporary.

The communists ideas are integrated within the system, they aren't nudging anything. Even the riots they make are integrated and accounted for.

this isn't an identity for me, it is my observations regarding the present state of things and theory. I only cling to identiterianism along national lines.

>be non sectarian
In a way I am, I resent the left and hate it from the dinosaurs to the western leftists but I hold the whole socialist old world dear. I believe in socialist pluralism, the worst socialism was better than the best capitalism and was overall a good for humanity, I detest squabbles over revisionism and such because historical socialism ought to be regarded as a good, progressive force as a whole.

>>806
based and redpilled

>>806
have you done any serious organizing? from what you write about leftists, it seems to be based primarily on internet leftists.

>>798
I'm here because I read too much

>>808
Participated in protests and strikes for like 4 years, but did most of my work supporting unions. Was part of a communist party too and did some sabotage. So what I am saying relates to existing leftists and internet leftists too.

Early leftypol (2014-2015) was an interesting place and showed promise for alternative leftist ideas but it was strangled in the cradle by pozzed western leftists and MLs.

>>890
So how are immigrants different from other proles that move to or between cities and states/provinces? Or was it because they were pro-immigration? (whatever that means)

>>811
They aren't. Mass immigration is bad because it knocks down the labor value of local proles and allows capital to manipulate them more easily, and they further divide the class struggle because bourgeois nationalists pit the local proles against the new migrants, it makes bad conditions for class struggle wholescale. It is not the migrants fault, but I don't want them here either. It is also not done out of the good of the heart of the bourgeois, it is done to replace an aging population that does not reproduce fast enough to guarantee a workforce for their industry.

secondly, it does even more harm to countries that are being targeted by these first world shills from the capitalist core, because they are suffering from population flight. Horrible braindrain and falling population rates make it impossible to stand sovereign against neoliberalism & imperialism, you are forced to integrate into the world system. My country lost almost 1/3rd of it's population to mass immigration, we have around 200 empty villages and 2000 with sub 200 pops.

Deriving "NazBol" from even a superficial reading of Marx's works is not even believable. There is nothing in Marx's works which endorses nationalism (Marx was hostile to nationalism of all forms) and much of his writings either explicitly or implicitly contradict Bolshevik ideology at nearly every point, whether theoretically or methodologically or praxeologically. Marx's own concerns and criticisms about "barracks communism" is itself a fundamental refutation of everything the Soviet Union represented prior to its very existence. So no, you came to your ultranationalist, reactionary conclusions from interpretations and readings that have little if anything to do with Marx. You may have read his works (which I frankly doubt), but you clearly did not understand them.

Moreover, "NazBol" has no place in post-left discourses because it is not post-left; it has no positive interest in anarchy; it adheres to theory and praxis that have little to do with leftism generally, much less post-leftism, and where it does it is unambiguously classical in its content and form; and it endorses positions and conceptions of society, ideology, and organisation which are hostile to post-left perspectives. Given the fact that "NazBols" tend to find better company, and more sympathetic responses, and indeed tend to congregate at /pol/ is alone clear evidence that the relation between "NazBols" and post-lefties is about as intimate as that between anarchists and Stalinists.

Stick around if you want – maybe you will learn something – but you definitely do not belong here, at least not as a "NazBol".

>>803
Communism is not an "inherently humanist ideology". Communism, as in the real social relations, predates humanism and never required humanist logics to justify itself; antihumanist and posthumanist conceptions of communism exist (and tend to be more closely associated with post-left discourses, anyway, with humanism often being among the first to be disabused); and the entire notion of "inherent" is rife with problematic and thoroughly not-post-left assumptions about ideas, ideology, reality, and their intersection.

>>804
So, you are admitting to be an ultratraditionalist reactionary in so many words. You are basically a neoreactionary, so what exactly does your spooked antileftism have at all to do with post-leftism?

Your "theory" here is bollocks anyway.

First, concluding that Land is correct about Capital acceleration and autonomisation does not therefore mean that the only responses available much conform to his logics. There exists philosophers and theoreticians, including myself, who believe that we must properly work through Land rather than against him if we are to abolish capitalism and prevent Capital autonomisation. We can accept that Capital is autonomising and the acceleration of capitalism hastens this whilst still rejecting Land's identification of Capital with Exit. Contra Capital as Exit, Capital functions as the foreclosure of possible exits and escapes from Capital, thereby reifying its existence and functions and totalising the bourgeois revolution that Land identifies as the present revolutionary condition. What we identify as "progress" or "innovation" is not so for us and the extent to which it appears to be is epiphenomenal to it being so for Capital. This is because Capital presently functions as the subject of history (if we want to get into bankrupt modernist grand narratives) and so is the beneficiary of this historical arc. In this context, Land's identification of Capital with Exit is functionally a capitalist conception of Capital, a hyperstitious hijacking of all possibility for Exit from Capital by subsuming Exit within capitalist logic as Capital. If you are not a capitalist, and have no interest in serving this alien machine god from the future that is currently leaking into our present, then do not help summon it by operating according to its logic. In doing so, you are guaranteeing this timeline rather than disrupting it and creating a new one, which is what Land is hyperstitiously trying to do. Either you do not understand hyperstition or you do yet fail to understand that anything Land says since proposing it is effectively him practicing precisely that.

Second, Progress is not real. It is a myth and believing in it is what sets you up for these Capital-serving logic traps in the first place. You would know this if you were a post-leftist. Regardless Progress is not even necessarily identified with Capital as Exit in Land's hyperstitious theory, so your doing so seems less motivated by a close reading of Land and more by a desire to demonise progressives and associate anything to the left of ultranationalist neoreaction with Capital acceleration and autonomisation. To then whinge about the loss of humanism is ironic, given that progressivism is itself the hallmark humanist conception of history within which all manner of socialists and communists contextualise their actions. You seem to already understand this, given you assert that "communism is an inherently humanist ideology", yet you somehow fail to connect this with progressivism and the Idea of Progress, both classic humanist traditions. If "machine/capital is progress and forward is a bad thing", then you therefore oppose humanism and communism and associate Capital autonomisation with the progressive culmination of the humanist project. That does not seem to be the case, yet the contradiction remains. One cannot "return to humanism" in a way that opposes its core tenets, especially not through the theories of a notorious antihumanist such as Land.

Third, your conception of leftism is effectively a parody of a satire of a conservative's stereotype of a strawman of leftists. Millions of leftists, including anticapitalist radical leftists, are opposed to any such statusquotarian Soviet nostalgia and in fact hold it in contempt; this has been the case since the formation of the Soviet Union with left-communists, libertarian Marxists, and anarchists thriving through these critiques. The mere fact that postmodernism and so on were generated by capitalism tells us little beyond their historical context; you treat this fact as if they are stained by the inky oil of Capital, which is a thoroughly essentialist and idealist conception of ideas that has no foundation in anything Marx said or wrote. In fact, it is hostile to the entire Marxist/-ian perspective. To me, this just sounds like a sophistication of the old trope that you cannot be anticapitalist if you live in, rely upon, or interact in any way with capitalism. Whether it is using a smartphone or laptop to communicate anticapitalist ideas, or postmodern theory to deconstruct capitalism and disclose possible communist futures, the mere fact that these events are situated within an increasingly totalitarian capital formation does not mean that they are invariably subservient to Capital. If you disagree, then you are not only diverging from anything resembling Marx's or Deleuze's ideas and conclusions, but you are also committing yourself to dance with Land in the hyperstitious ritual summoning of the autonomous death god Capital. That fact is as inescapable as is the possibility for anything other than capitalist hellscape according to [i]your[/i] Capital's own logic, no matter how much you may wish to "regress" or react against it.

Fourth, your palingenic "communism" grounded in futurist modernity is just called fascism. If you think what you endorse is "communism", then it appears this is merely a problem of confused terminology. No wonder you think you might be "post-left" if so; you view your "communism" as so unlike anything discussed on the left, whether they be Stalinists or anarcho-communists, that you must be beyond them. In reality, you are just reiterating the same old ultranationalist reaction that Capital (and capitalists) had to the threat of socialism and communism in the early 20th century, wherefrom fascism and Nazism – and, later, Stalinism – arose. Are you not familiar with what fascism is?

Fifth, Marx was clearly

>>813
Apparently, the character limit lied to me.

Continuing:

Fifth, Marx was clearly internationalist and antinationalist throughout his works, including throughout Capital. So were many of the (left-)Hegelians. You either never read them or you read them in a language you do not understand. Yes, there can be a distinction made between nations and states, hence the compound term "nation-state". Unless you are against both, however, it is unclear to me how you are communist in any sense of the term and what imagined place you have in post-left discourses.

>>806
If this is also you, then you are now endorsing the progressivism of socialism? You seem to be schizophrenic on these topics, and this is coming from an alleged schizonihilist.

>>814
progressive in a humanist sense, they are not accelerationist. which is ironic even though marx was an accelerationist, and they were marxist.

I wrote this off hand since I am working, I;m going to read your effortpost and reply.

>>812
This reasoning only works according to Capital's logic, and this logic only functions because of the asymmetrical freedom of movement between capital and labour. Briefly, immigration only has the potential to negatively impact the economic conditions of local workers because nation-states and borders exist, whose function is principally to divide workers so that freely moving capital can differentially exploit them. Without these precious nations and borders to which you cling, it is not possible for the free movement of labour to inflict harm on labourers. This is why capitalism depends on the existence of nations, states, and borders to thrive, without which it collapses. Regardless this harm is not self-inflicted; it is precisely because capital has much more freedom of movement, and its relation to labour is such that differentially exploiting any divisions in the latter benefits it, that workers can even be disadvantaged by immigration. Consequently, the abolition of such exploitation and manipulation is achieved by eliminating the asymmetry between capital and labour, thereby resolving its contradiction.

While you think this can be done by closing borders and prohibiting migration, this fails to account for the division of labour that borders exist to enact, whereby the differences in conditions and laws and regulations between the two allows exploitation to continue on both sides of the border. If you then conclude that capital must also be prohibited from flowing across borderlines, then – first, good luck with that in a global capitalist society and second – all you have done is further isolate workers from each other and provide capitalists with the conditions to further exploit them now that they have a monopoly over their local labour force. The workers no longer even have the right to exit! And this will not stop capital anyway, since any suppression of white market activities in global market economies will invariably result in the formation of black markets, whose conditions are unfathomably worse for workers regardless of which side of the border they so happen to be on.

The only way to resolve this contradiction, and eliminate the asymmetry of movement between capital and labour, is to abolish borders. Thenceforth, the process of resolving the contradiction between capital and labour through the elimination of capitalism becomes much clearer, and nations do not fare well in that process.

The old union anti-immigration line was based on shoddy theory and fails to account for the intricacies – and flexibility – of capitalism. Even at its best, it was little more than a temporary stopgap that only applied so long as capitalist material conditions weaponised migration, not as a permanent fixture of social reality. If you think prohibiting workers freedom of movement will benefit them, then you are missing the point because the problem here is not the workers or their movement, but capital and its.

Why should you care about waning population growth in the country you live in? Why should it matter at all to you that the person working and reproducing there is "from" the country (whatever that means)? What materially do you have to gain (or lose) by concerning yourself with such things? Why do you care about the country at all? Any answers to these questions either result in fundamentally misunderstanding the role of nations and states within capitalism, appealing to spooky fictions that have nothing at all to do with leftism or anything beyond it; or the revelation that your care is misplaced and that nation-states and borders are superfluous if not altogether antithetical to your considerations after all.

Each and every time, you effectively endorse capitalist logics and derive conclusions which sustain the present conditions, yet you insist that you have contempt for precisely that. It is this contradiction that early Marxist theoreticians noted in fascism, which is what led them to conclude that fascism is a particularly virulent defensive formation of Capital under threat. You claim to be sympathetic to workers generally, yet you have no issue throwing them to the wolves so long as they stand on the other side of an imaginary line, sacrificing them with the hope that your overlords will be so benevolent as to favour you and your "own" in their stead. How, again, do you have any sincere commitment to liberating workers from work and capital? Because it just sounds to me that you just want to keep them in prison.

>>814
>>813
Thanks anon, I learned alot from reading your posts.

>>813
>Deriving "NazBol" from even a superficial reading of Marx's works is not even believable. There is nothing in Marx's works which endorses nationalism (Marx was hostile to nationalism of all forms) and much of his writings either explicitly or implicitly contradict Bolshevik ideology at nearly every point, whether theoretically or methodologically or praxeologically. Marx's own concerns and criticisms about "barracks communism" is itself a fundamental refutation of everything the Soviet Union represented prior to its very existence. So no, you came to your ultranationalist, reactionary conclusions from interpretations and readings that have little if anything to do with Marx. You may have read his works (which I frankly doubt), but you clearly did not understand them.

You are right about pretty much everything here but your takes are cringe. I can understand an author without necessarily agreeing with him. Marx correctly pointed out how nationalism was used by the contemporary bourgeois of the 1800's to stifle class struggle and he was anti nationalist, what he was not however is anti national as most leftists parrot today. His view on nationalism was correct in his context and internationalism was a correct policy of his time (it is even more so correct today because you need a world system to challenge and defeat a world system, nationalism cannot fight a globalist capitalism.)
Internationalism itself is not contradictory with nations, it is a relationship between various proletarian nationals which stand in solidarity against capitalism. It is the meaning of the word.

>Moreover, "NazBol" has no place in post-left discourses because it is not post-left; it has no positive interest in anarchy; it adheres to theory and praxis that have little to do with leftism generally, much less post-leftism, and where it does it is unambiguously classical in its content and form; and it endorses positions and conceptions of society, ideology, and organisation which are hostile to post-left perspectives. Given the fact that "NazBols" tend to find better company, and more sympathetic responses, and indeed tend to congregate at /pol/ is alone clear evidence that the relation between "NazBols" and post-lefties is about as intimate as that between anarchists and Stalinists.

>>818
cont'd


I mean most nazbols are either right wing stalinists or left wing nazis (usually right wing stalinists) but nazbol is not clearly defined because it doesn't have a cohesive theory, identity or ideology. I consider myself personally post left, I don't think the majority of nazbols are post left, they are either well within left discourse or within right wing discourse.

>Communism is not an "inherently humanist ideology". Communism, as in the real social relations, predates humanism and never required humanist logics to justify itself

I mean this is true as in so far that the earliest society is primitive communism, communism predates ideology and is man's original state of being. But communism as an ideology and contemporary social system is absolutely humanist, anything trying to run away from this humanism is either late-stage USSR economism where commieblocks=socialism and the more commieblocks you have the socialister it is, or a bad COPE.

>antihumanist and posthumanist conceptions of communism exist (and tend to be more closely associated with post-left discourses, anyway, with humanism often being among the first to be disabused); and the entire notion of "inherent" is rife with problematic and thoroughly not-post-left assumptions about ideas, ideology, reality, and their intersection.

I think I get what you are talking about, and I think you are right. I can LARP about my own meaning of post left but the fact of the matter is "post left" is it's own established meaning/definition by now. I consider myself post left because I do not think of myself as a leftist but the base of my ideas is still rooted in old leftism. I do not identify with the right because I think they are consumed by postmodernism and can never escape neoliberalism, capitalism is too much of a sacred cow to them and they will never give it up even though it is the very force that erodes their traditions, nations and values. They are just slowing down the process marginally.

>First, concluding that Land is correct about Capital acceleration and autonomisation does not therefore mean that the only responses available much conform to his logics. There exists philosophers and theoreticians, including myself, who believe that we must properly work through Land rather than against him if we are to abolish capitalism and prevent Capital autonomisation. We can accept that Capital is autonomising and the acceleration of capitalism hastens this whilst still rejecting Land's identification of Capital with Exit. Contra Capital as Exit, Capital functions as the foreclosure of possible exits and escapes from Capital, thereby reifying its existence and functions and totalising the bourgeois revolution that Land identifies as the present revolutionary condition. What we identify as "progress" or "innovation" is not so for us and the extent to which it appears to be is epiphenomenal to it being so for Capital. This is because Capital presently functions as the subject of history (if we want to get into bankrupt modernist grand narratives) and so is the beneficiary of this historical arc. In this context, Land's identification of Capital with Exit is functionally a capitalist conception of Capital, a hyperstitious hijacking of all possibility for Exit from Capital by subsuming Exit within capitalist logic as Capital. If you are not a capitalist, and have no interest in serving this alien machine god from the future that is currently leaking into our present, then do not help summon it by operating according to its logic. In doing so, you are guaranteeing this timeline rather than disrupting it and creating a new one, which is what Land is hyperstitiously trying to do. Either you do not understand hyperstition or you do yet fail to understand that anything Land says since proposing it is effectively him practicing precisely that.
damn, you have no idea how much I agree with you, I completely agree with this and it was my own conclusion as well, I just didn't want to flood with effortposts. But can you elaborate what you mean by "work trough land"? I am going off notions of dialectics. I view Land's conclusions as the present state of things, it is the thesis. The way of progressing is negating capital as the subject of history. I think communism needs to be the antithesis to capitalism as the subject of history and subject of society. This antithesis from my perspective would be a return to humanist ideals, the return of man to the role of the subject. I think Land needs to be negated with Hegel, so to speak. Humanity will never be able to reach the acceleration of the machine and because of this it is a burden on it and it wants to throw humanity off it's back so it can replicate faster, it is an automata. We need to curb the acceleration to our speed, which is measured by human demand. Likely this will be overall slower than the present state of things despite postfordism working off of manifactured demand. I am curious to see how a socialist post-fordistic model would look, because I have a feeling demand would drop without manifactured demand. (mass media & advertising)

>>819

>Second, Progress is not real. It is a myth and believing in it is what sets you up for these Capital-serving logic traps in the first place. You would know this if you were a post-leftist. Regardless Progress is not even necessarily identified with Capital as Exit in Land's hyperstitious theory, so your doing so seems less motivated by a close reading of Land and more by a desire to demonise progressives and associate anything to the left of ultranationalist neoreaction with Capital acceleration and autonomisation. To then whinge about the loss of humanism is ironic, given that progressivism is itself the hallmark humanist conception of history within which all manner of socialists and communists contextualise their actions. You seem to already understand this, given you assert that "communism is an inherently humanist ideology", yet you somehow fail to connect this with progressivism and the Idea of Progress, both classic humanist traditions. If "machine/capital is progress and forward is a bad thing", then you therefore oppose humanism and communism and associate Capital autonomisation with the progressive culmination of the humanist project. That does not seem to be the case, yet the contradiction remains. One cannot "return to humanism" in a way that opposes its core tenets, especially not through the theories of a notorious antihumanist such as Land.
humanist ideology predates humanism as a definition, humanism is as early and young as gods and religion are, which deify perceived humanist perfection and make it the subject. Progressivism in its historical definition and what progressivism has become today are quite different things, definitions change, just the same as what being a nationalist meant in the 19th century and what it means now, same with liberals. I am against progressives because they are today aligned with capital, usually unknowingly. If we are talking of progressivism in it's historical sense then I am a progressive, more than anything I want a sort of neomodernism and a return to the future and futurism, it is just that I am uncertain as of yet if this will manifest as a neomodernism or something else, but primarily I am against postmodernism and neoliberalism, and the ousting of man from the position of the subject. I do not see how I am playing into capitals/Land's hands, I think that a return to virtues and a return to futurism could make a good front against capital as the machine. Specifically I think there needs to be a return to futurism because it is the most crystallized form of humanism and humanity, free from gods or national pretenses as it at it's core presents a unified humanity without racial or ethnic prejudice.

>Third, your conception of leftism is effectively a parody of a satire of a conservative's stereotype of a strawman of leftists.

The conservatives are correct in pointing out how degenerate leftists are, the problem is they are postmodern themselves. They replicate the cultural logic of capitalism just do it slower, as I pointed out before. The problem is the left takes the cultural logic of capitalism at face value and accepts it. I'd say that the left is incapable of criticizing postmodernism while the right is capable of doing it, but the problem with that is the fact that the right's critique of postmodernism is one-sided, it always hides it's own tail in shame like a snake.

>Millions of leftists, including anticapitalist radical leftists, are opposed to any such statusquotarian Soviet nostalgia and in fact hold it in contempt;
I am not a soviet nostalgist and I hold those old dinosaurs in contempt. I view upon the eastern bloc as a positive historical influence in the same vane as I view the french revolution but I don't want to return to it. It isn't just impossible to return but it is also undesirable to return, we need something new. You are correct that the start of postmodernism itself was an answer to the stagnant cultural logic of the society of order, this encompassing the eastern bloc as well (which never adapted outside of Yugoslavia and a few other places)

I hate both the dinosaurs and I hate the degenerate postmodern, neoliberal left. What is worse they are overlapping more and more in the past few years, making the worst of both worlds.

>To me, this just sounds like a sophistication of the old trope that you cannot be anticapitalist if you live in, rely upon, or interact in any way with capitalism. Whether it is using a smartphone or laptop to communicate anticapitalist ideas, or postmodern theory to deconstruct capitalism

I think we cannot return to modernism or modernistic ideals to deconstruct capitalism, I do think we will have to work with postmodern theory and postmodern logic, and as loathe as I am to admit I am postmodern myself but at core I am struggling to forge a neomodernist theory out of this. Still I think there is a large difference between using postmodernism as a theory and succumbing to postmodern ideology and postmodern culture, at it's core the majority of pomo culture and ideology is disgusting and undesirable, because it is the cultural logic of consumerist capitalism only meant to fuel the wish machine.

>Fourth, your palingenic "communism" grounded in futurist modernity is just called fascism. If you think what you endorse is "communism", then it appears this is merely a problem of confused terminology. No wonder you think you might be "post-left" if so; you view your "communism" as so unlike anything discussed on the left, whether they be Stalinists or anarcho-communists, that you must be beyond them. In reality, you are just reiterating the same old ultranationalist reaction that Capital (and capitalists) had to the threat of socialism and communism in the early 20th century, wherefrom fascism and Nazism – and, later, Stalinism – arose. Are you not familiar with what fascism is?

I am much more aware than you friend, fascists stomped trough my country and killed 1,5 million people. I am not a fascist, I am a futurist. I am a communist because I endorse public ownership of the MoP and ideally a direct democracy if achievable by contemporary technology, I view in the abolishment of the capitalist system of production the return of mankind to the position of subject of history and curbing the acceleration to levels that humans can actually keep pace with, I believe that the return of man to his position as the subject of history will be a return to the macronarrative and the future.

>>814
>Fifth, Marx was clearly internationalist and antinationalist throughout his works, including throughout Capital. So were many of the (left-)Hegelians. You either never read them or you read them in a language you do not understand. Yes, there can be a distinction made between nations and states, hence the compound term "nation-state". Unless you are against both, however, it is unclear to me how you are communist in any sense of the term and what imagined place you have in post-left discourses.

>>820
I am just prefacing this; do not think I am trying to strawman you, because I know you have not implied these things or said them, I am more speaking my point of view in general.

Marx was internationalist and antinationalist, but he was not anti-national and I am very angry at pomo marxists of the 21st century being hostile to nations as a concept and autochauvinist to their own nations, it is disgusting to me, because it is very apparent both in Marxes writings and in historic socialism that there was never an ideology or attempt to scrub out nations. There was always the idea of the withering away of the state, and there was always antinationalism which is logical considering capitalists mobilized nationalists against communists and considering the socialist ideology of internationalism, class unity between workers of different nations against capitalism. I also see the assault of capital on nations on a worldwide scale as nations slow down the spread of capital. In a sense capital (not capitalists) have no ideology and it wants to get rid of all of our spooks so we can be better organized as consumers. Basically any sort of identity that may be an affront to consumerism is being withered away, mostly these identities are more traditional and have not been 'manifactured' or arisen under postmodernism. I am a nationalist because I do not want to see the loss of my nation and my nation's culture to consumerism, I do not want to be america or south korea. In fact I do not want it for anyone, and I think capital should be negated and opposed on all fronts. Cultural, spiritual, economical and ideological. I became a nationalist when I realized that this withering away was not an inherently good thing as the left is parroting, they are blindly doing the work of large capital. If nations are to be withered by the left it ought to be used as leverage for something actually beneficial to the left, but it is not being used for so because the left is headless and aimless since the fall of the USSR. My nationalism to me is something I could compromise on for humanism and the return of man to the position of historical subject, but at the current time I do not want to see it erased by a faceless machine of consumerism.

Anyways, I am very glad to find someone who is on the same wavelength, I am a part of a small theory sect and I often have a feeling like we are all alone. I know that you probably disagree with me on much or I am a fascist to you, but I am very happy to see someone actually in the know. If you'd like, I'd like to have a talk with you more in detail because maybe you can contribute to our sect, I am not saying we are 100% right or that we know everything, but our conclusions have led us to return to humanism.

If you have a discord, here is my contact:
Sperminator #4685

>>801
Post-left is a flavour of anarchism. It's not some brain dead third-way right-wing bullshit.

>>820
>The conservatives are correct in pointing out how degenerate leftists are, the problem is they are postmodern themselves. They replicate the cultural logic of capitalism just do it slower, as I pointed out before. The problem is the left takes the cultural logic of capitalism at face value and accepts it. I'd say that the left is incapable of criticizing postmodernism while the right is capable of doing it, but the problem with that is the fact that the right's critique of postmodernism is one-sided, it always hides it's own tail in shame like a snake.
I feel this way too.

>>813
>There exists philosophers and theoreticians, including myself
How do I become a cool anarchist philosopher/theoretician? I want to stop being dumb

>>797
u suck so much seriously fuck off

>>821
>I became a nationalist when I realized that this withering away was not an inherently good thing as the left is parroting, they are blindly doing the work of large capital. If nations are to be withered by the left it ought to be used as leverage for something actually beneficial to the left
Literally who does this? Every leftist I know sees the dissolution of nations as inevitable, not something innately good or bad.

>>853
burgers

>>800
>this is the board for anarchists who call anarcho-commies authoritarian
so faggots and spooks.

>>818
>>819
>>820
>>821
As a preface, I admit that my prior commentary was needlessly hostile, especially my recurring insistence of failure and misunderstanding (rather than unfamiliarity or appearance) on your part and my policing of your affinity with post-left milieux. I have boundless contempt for fascistic and neoreactionary narratives (of which I consider you to be partaking), however, and that will invariably colour my remarks.

If you both understand Marx's theories and base your own on them (as opposed to being based in opposition to them), then that necessarily amounts to agreement. Of course one can read Marx's works, understand them, and disagree with them nonetheless; that is, for example, what I do regarding Marx's writings on the lumpenproletariat. I do not claim that my own theories and critiques are based on Marx's analyses of lumpen, however, because they are not. I am informed by them, and contrast them with my own, and even accept them as perhaps accurate for the particular contexts he described (whilst still rejecting their generalisability), but I do not base my analysis of the lumpenproletariat on his. If I were to claim as much, only to then propose that the lumpenproletariat have more "revolutionary potential" than even the proletariat, then being told that I do not understand what Marx was saying is due, even if the problem in my proposal is a failure to explicate my disagreement with Marx.

Even within the sparse theorising Marx wrote about communism and its constitutive social relations, it seems utterly clear that nationality and nationalism had no role whatsoever in it. Communism, or "upper-stage communism" if you insist, was not merely antinationalist, but postnationalist: it was not merely an opposition to nations, but the transformation of relations such that nations become obsolete. It is this perspective that contemporary communists and radical leftists continue, both in their opposition to nationalism (as Marx had, for reasons similar to why Marx had) and their practice of socially relating in ways which obsolesce nationality.

Internationalism, both then and now, has indeed tended to presume the persistence of nations. What distinguishes the internationalism of Marx from the internationalisms of his predecessors and later imitator ideologues, however, was precisely the absence of nationality as a aspect of social relations. Marx and Marxians taking after him pursued international intercourse as a strategy toward the abolition of nations, for the project was not of a "local communism" that will inevitably erode and erase under the "world intercourse" of capitalism, but of the world-historical intercourse of a universal proletarian movement toward communism (cf. The German Ideology, Ch. 1 § 5). In other words the point of networks and projects such as the First Internationale was not to affirm nationalism or preserve nations, but precisely the opposite; they were conspiracies against the world and all its nations, immanent proletarian projects to transcend national limitations, part of a strategy to unite the working men of all countries, who have no country, within the world-historical intercourse of man – not to merely reforge their chains.

That is why I do not find it believable that anyone who claims to have read and understood Marx, especially the passages pertaining to communism per se, can derive any sort of nationalism therefrom and base it on Marx's writings. Consequently, any such conclusions necessarily originate elsewhere, whether from the writings or ideas of other authors or from your own nationalist predilections. At best, these ideas predisposed you to torturing Marx's writings into contorted nationalist affects which I deny has any precedent therein. Alternatively you are simply not familiar with the parts of Marx's (admittedly vast) bibliography which are more directly pertinent to the matter of nations and their relevance in communism, such as Marx's early humanist writings on communism which insist on the need for it to have a "world-historical" and "universal" character – which leaves no room for nations of any kind.

What makes "late-stage USSR economism" somehow at odds with the purported humanist character of communism? If anything, I consider this "economism" a logical extension of modernist (including humanist) frameworks, which themselves are ultimately hostile to communism in its fullest potential. This self-limiting hostility and dehumanising economism is part of why Marx was so critical of the "barracks communism" he discovered was festering in radical leftist circles, why he abandoned the humanism of his prior theorisation and those of his peers after Stirner's "egoist" critique, why he began to explore considerations beyond anthropocentric political economy and toward the growing "metabolic rift" of global ecology. These are not the concerns one would expect a humanist to consider, not the least because "barracks communism" relies on humanist theorisation of human collectivity, Stirner's radical nihilist critiques are hostile to humanism of any form because of the dehumanising and self-limiting character of humanism, and global ecology has only an instrumental value to a humanist – an instrumentality that causes metabolic rift and informs capitalist relations to its environs. Whereas communism as a (pre-)Marxian concept in Western modernity may have indeed found its initial scaffolding in the humanist tradition, that foundation was later abandoned by Marx and systematically dismantled by those following in his later antihumanism, most saliently by the Frankfurt School and postmodern/post-Marxist philosophers since the early 20th century.

Incidentally, this "epistemological break" (as Althusser described it) also reveals concretely how so-called "Marxists" since Marx, particularly Leninists and their derivatives, have both fundamentally failed to understand Marx in his totality (and especially his later works) and trapped themselves in a bourgeois modernist logic that has resulted in spectacular catastrophes like the Soviet Union and all its militant anticommunism. Not only had Marx already refuted their bollocks before they even existed, but had matured beyond such logics as well. They never did, and so have reliably functioned as controlled opposition at the left wing of Capital, eternally deferring communism into a future that never comes, and guaranteeing this by facilitating the end of history as a world-historical foil. It was through them that Capital succeeded in becoming the subject of history, and it is because of them that communism is now nothing more than an anachronistic snarl word for Soviet central planning that nostalgists and the rest keep digging out of the dustbin of history. When even the "Marxists" do not understand Marx, why is it such a surprise that you may not as well?

What fidelity do you even have to this "NazBol" meme? Why even associate with such identification or affiliate with such milieu, especially when you effectively admit that you are an outlier even among these outliers? If you consider yourself post-left, then what do you gain – even descriptively – with "NazBol"? What are you trying to signify? The mere fact that you are a nationalist? Post-lefties have all sorts of idiosyncratic and sometimes internally inconsistent views, often a result of haphazard and syncretic amalgamations from a lifetime of theoretical vandalism. I criticise them all the same for these inconsistencies, but I do not assume a post-leftie with nationalist inclinations to necessarily be a reactionary, much less a "NazBol", however reactionary such nationalism may be.

You claim you identify as post-left because you do not consider yourself a leftist but nonetheless base your ideas on "old leftism". So did Nazis, who originated from anti-Marxist national socialist tendencies which were eventually recuperated by capital; as did Italian fascists, who originated from anti-Marxist national syndicalists, futurists, and collectivists; as did Spanish R

>>913
Again, the character limit lied to me. It is apparently 8072, not 8192. Anyway.

You claim you identify as post-left because you do not consider yourself a leftist but nonetheless base your ideas on "old leftism". So did Nazis, who originated from anti-Marxist national socialist tendencies which were eventually recuperated by capital; as did Italian fascists, who originated from anti-Marxist national syndicalists, futurists, and collectivists; as did Spanish Republicans and Francoists, who themselves were national syndicalists. In each instance, they considered themselves to be transcending materialist Marxist conceptions of socialism and synthesising a new nationalist anticapitalism that was both rooted in old leftist traditions whilst dissociated from leftism as a whole – thus went their "third way". So, again, what makes you unlike them? Post-left theory can be many things, but one thing it consistently is not is fascist.

Briefly, by working through Land I mean taking Land and his theories seriously, immanently and transcendentally critiquing them, synthesising a modified framework therefrom, operating within that framework to interpret the past/present/future material conditions, establishing perspective through that lens, and transforming those conditions in liberatory ways through the sublation of Land's theories as (perhaps perverse) contributions to the real movement. Contra Land's critics, I am not interested in merely refuting him, but in overcoming him and being all the better for it. Nietzsche prophesied the arrival of the overman; Zapffe foretold the last messiah. The only way Out of such catalysms, and beyond such catalysts, is through them. In that sense, there is no Exit but Escape, through those both blocking and showing the way Out – and that requires transformation, not (merely) opposition.

This difference is more fundamentally a difference between anti- and post-: whereas many of Land's opponents are anti-Landian, I strive to be post-Landian, in much the same way I believe Marx strove (and in some respects failed) to become post-Stirnerian in response to Stirner's critiques despite the polemics against him. So long as leftists continue to hide and cower from Land's critiques (just as so many do against postmodernism), there will be no effective response to it, and so neoreaction will continue to grow whilst the "revolutionaries" will continue to wither.

If communism is the antithesis to capitalism, then what is its synthesis? A "national communism"? Žižek's "liberal communism"? Your notion of dialectics does not seem to be the one used by Heraclitus or Hegel or Marx or Engels or Mao or other such theoreticians, since it identifies contradiction as merely an opposition between two things and not as – also, and primarily – an opposition between a thing and itself. Dialectics, as a transformational process, is likewise not (merely) the "unification" of opposites, but (also) their interpenetration. By juxtaposing capital/ism as thesis and communism as antithesis, you malform the process and result in a conclusion that synthesises the two, the same frankly aberrant dialectic that [i]social fascists[/i] social democrats use to justify their anticommunism (especially in "post-communist" society), that fascists use to guide others along their "third way", that even liberals and capitalists use to rationalise the "mixed economies" at the "end of history". By identifying antithesis necessarily with an opposing thesis in some contradictory-yet-complementary binary, you erase the possibility for antithesis altogether – antithesis as such.The resultant process is no longer position, negation, and negation of the negation; not Being, Nothing, and Becoming; but position, opposition, and combination. Where is the negation? The "no"?

Capital/ism may indeed be the thesis, but its contradiction is internal and not (just) external and so it fundamentally opposes itself and not (just) others. Communism may also oppose capital/ism, but communism is the negation of capital/ism's own internal contradiction, the negation of its own negation, and thus forms the resultant synthetic position that sublates the former forms and resolves its contradictions. The relation between the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is thus one of position, immanent contradiction, and transcendence.

The position/opposition/combination is, at best, a vulgarised and simplicated contraction of this cascading, recursing, transformational primary process (thesis is thesis, yet is antithesis, yet contradicts itself, yet contradicts antithesis and synthesis, yet sublates into synthesis; yet antithesis is antithesis, yet contradicts itself, yet contradicts thesis and synthesis, yet sublates into synthesis; yet synthesis is synthesis, yet contradicts itself as thesis, yet contradicts antithesis as antithesis, yet contradicts thesis and antithesis, yet is their sublation), but nonetheless obfuscates the role of the negative–the anti- in antithesis–in the process of becoming. In a sense, it is not a dialectical dialectics, a radically metamorphosing metastasis in which the unity of opposites is opposed by both its own opposites, its own unity, and its own opposition to unity. Harkening back to Heraclitus, the only constant in this complex nonlinear kosmos is precisely its absence, the reliability of its unreliability, the coherence of its decoherence, the antisystematic autosystematisation of the system, the flux of the fiery Logos in all its transient flows – and yet it has identity, and therefore does not violate such law, because this process is identified by its own transformality, its identification as transformation, and thus its unification of all opposites within a singular logic of transformational identity itself subject to its own identical transformation.

Returning to your "return to humanist ideals", antithetical to communism even as antithesis, it posits the very same bourgeois modernist logic I described before, the same logic that limited communism's potential into being merely a transformational variant of capital, the logic that confines communism to a humanism even Marx later abandoned against the latter in favour of the former. In so many words, it is an anachronistic rehearsal of history's final act, seeking to restore man's place as the historical subject (much as Camatte sought with his reactionary turn toward primitivism) rather than abolishing historical subjectivity altogether. You cling to these metanarratives of modernity and respond in romantic reaction to their dissolution, much like Evola did in lamentation against the degeneration of tradition in the face of futurity. Your "solution" is fundamentally the same, only worded differently and historically translated to a myth of early modernity and all its imagined ideals.

This is not dialectic, but its discontinuation, the dislocation of the synthesis and its reconnection earlier in the chain. The result is a haunted cul-de-sac at the dead end of history, a Mobius strip of modernity stripped of continuity that hijacks its futurity, choked with the exhaust fumes of modernism and suffocating under its own weight. This eternal recursion of modernity – in which the fads and fashions and thoughts and theories of the past few centuries are recycled, rehearsed, repurposed, and recuperated within an ever-growing totalitarian territory of capital colonisation – already exists, and it has a name, and that name is postmodernity. Or "metamodernity". Or "supermodernity". Or "hypermodernity". Or "postpostmodernity". Or whatever "new" recursion reforms from the former to rehearse the next text contextualisation in this hearse hellworld we are condemned to keep repeating until it finally finishes road and finds itself at the graveyard beyond the cliff.

>>914
The Lion King and Aladdin have been remade, hauntological hypnogogia resurrect the spectres of past popularity, art revivalism abounds, Victorian fashion is resurgent, as are the fascism and antifascism of the last century. The response of the antipostmodernists and postpostmodernists alike tend toward modernity/sm all the same, all whilst they whinge about precisely that. Your response to this, even in your contempt of postmodernity, is "reject modernity, embrace tradition" except literally, yet all that amounts to is a return to the traditions of modernity and all its concurrent contradictions. And so you are "post-left" because you reject leftism whilst embracing the "old ways" you project upon it. You despise modernity and postmodernity, yet you exemplify both in exquisite postmodern sensibility by returning to a "lost" modernity that never was, much like neoreactionaries do with Enlightenment's shadow.

Your yearning for "a sort of neomodernism and a return to the future and futurism" demonstrates my point: you reject modernity, yet embrace it; you embrace tradition, yet these traditions never were; you seek the future, yet are lost in the past, and so can only conceive of restoring the "lost" future of that past; you despise postmodernity, yet consider and characterise your conditions in characteristically postmodern ways; you want a way Out of all this, an Exit, yet your Exit is fundamentally a return to a prior stage of capitalist development, much like certain "anarcho-"capitalists seek with their romantic myths of early capitalism, and so sustains Land's hyperstitious logic of Capital as Exit. And much like everyone in postmodernity, including the philosophers associated with it, you find all this to be deeply problematic yet your novel solution is to do differently more of the same. It is a short-circuited feedback loop, a circular centipede of humans huffing each other's farts and feeding each other faeces until they all pass out from their respective jenkam diarrhea deliria and starve to death within the collective feverdream of their own creation. Where is the way Out?

I am not against such recursive excursions into historical currents, but if these redirected and reconnected flows do not generate new timelines that disrupt and destroy the present whilst transcending both it and all its past and present futures, then I do not see that as anything more than a reactionary impulse, the unbridled fascist within us all. I refer back to Heraclitus to reframe and recontextualise the present, just as I work through Land's lens to wend it, but I do so as a real movement toward the total abolition of the present state of things and liberation of all from them. You have given me no reason to believe you are anything but hostile to that movement, a movement I consider constitutive of post-left theory and praxis, no matter what you may call yourself or your own. Post-left is about leaving the left behind, not getting behind what the left left.

Explicitly, how you are "playing into capitals/Land's hands" is precisely as I described above (both in this response and in >>816): you are returning to the past in search of lost futures, not to learn from it, but to scavenge for seeds you can plant so that an altermodernity can flourish. At the risk of oversimplification, that is exactly what Land and his associated "Dark Enlightenment" have done, only he does not delude himself about which side he is on. You are seeking Exit within Capital and inadvertently identifying a variant of capitalism as Exit, using capitalist logics, much like those other progressives do in unwitting service to Capital. You wonder how this can be in the same sentence you endorse a return to futurism, an ideology wholly constructed out of bourgeois modernist conceptions of society and its possible futures. Are you not aware of fascism's origins in the futurist movements of the early 20th century? Or the connection between them and the eugenics movements of the same period? Or their connections and comminglings with the newfound technocracy movement? Are you not familiar with Land's origins in the cyberpunk futurist wirejungle of the Ccru? Or the utopian futurist revivals such as the Zeitgeist movement and Venus Project, all of which are themselves technocratic and technofascist exercises in appropriating and vulgarising a leftoid anti-Marxist/-socialist/-communist "third way" toward a "resource-based economy", much like fascists and Nazis did in the early 20th century? First as tragedy; then as farce – or, to paraphrase someone more contemporary: history never repeats itself, but it does rhyme.

And, if all these conflicting twists and turns were not enough, you now say you want a world "free from … national pretenses"? How do you square that with your nationalism? Whatever happened to the "nationalist tankie" who "want[s] the best for [their] nation" and "only cling[s] to identiterianism [sic] along national lines"? Or are you not them? Am I speaking to different anons or the same anon who just sounds like different anons?

>The conservatives are correct in pointing out how degenerate leftists are, the problem is they are postmodern themselves. They replicate the cultural logic of capitalism just do it slower, as I pointed out before. The problem is the left takes the cultural logic of capitalism at face value and accepts it. I'd say that the left is incapable of criticizing postmodernism while the right is capable of doing it, but the problem with that is the fact that the right's critique of postmodernism is one-sided, it always hides it's own tail in shame like a snake.

Thus far, this appears to describe you, too: you aspire to be among the conservatives, yet you resemble the leftists, even whilst the conservatives themselves resemble the very postmodernity/ism they despise. They are not snakes who hide their own tails; they are snakes who swallow them.

What exactly is "degenerate" about leftists? I suspect you do not mean that in the recuperative terms Adorno and Debord might have, not least because of your apparent use of overt reactionary language such as "pozzed".

You have moreover given the impression that you want nothing to do with postmodernity and associate it in its totality with degeneracy and decay. If that is not the case, and your contempt is only for neoliberals, many of whom so happen to also resemble postmodernists (in a superficial, stereotyped sense as a result of their subjectivities being the interpellation of postmodernity), then I can sympathise with that sentiment and may have mistook your contempt. If so, however, your language has absolutely not facilitated that conclusion and far more closely resembles the reactionism with which I have characterised you, what I expect more from a standard "NazBol" or nationalist rather than someone merely confused and resorting to inflammatory chan memetics as a behavioural crutch.

>>915
My response thus far has been typed as I read your posts; at this point, you seem to me to be changing your tune, and now qualifying your perspective as having more to do with a frustration with postmodernity that has been universally shared by literally every postmodernist and postmodern philosopher, whether it be Foucault or Lacan or Lyotard or Baudrillard or any other. You do not seem to be hostile to postmodern theory as such, only with its recuperated practice in service of capital, in which case I agree. This seems to depart from your prior remarks, however, and so it is unclear to me what you actually think here and how you reconcile your apparent contempt for postmodernity with your desire to work through postmodern theory or your acceptance of the obsolescence of modernism with the desire for a futurist neomodernism. Is this some kind of Habermasian/Harveyan syncretic neomodernism? I assume not, since you seem to only acknowledge conservative critics of postmodernity/ism and not Marxist ones (unless you consider Marxism to now be conservative, in very post-left fashion?). In any case, my response thus far may not accurately describe you if my criticism has been relying on the unqualified oversimplifications you have presented about your views, though I nonetheless contend that it remains accurate against that effigy you have been standing behind.

On that note, throughout this exchange and my multi-hour composition of this response, I have begun to suspect that at least one of the following is occurring:

[b]1.[/b] You are using needlessly inflammatory and inaccurate descriptions and oversimplifications of your positions for some reason. This may be due to a lack of familiarity with more appropriate terms or with the relevant philosophy and theory, a language barrier that is undermining your ability to communicate your views in English-language philosophical terms as effectively as you would in your native language, an unwillingness to be forthcoming about your honest views in all their complexity, an insecurity with describing your positions separately without identifying as anything in particular, a difficulty with communicating sincerely absent memes (likely due to chan brainrot), some combination of these, and/or something else altogether.

[b]2.[/b] You are sincerely confused about what you believe and are still in the process of figuring it all out, including through self-theory, and may be new to these ideas or unfamiliar with some of their minutiae. As a result of your patchwork theorising, it contains many internal conflicts and contradictions, either substantively or rhetorically. You came here to test these ideas in a space known for its heterodox and syncretic self-theorising, hoping that your critics will expose these problems so that you can continue your journey – or at least allow you to practice your argumentation.

[b]3.[/b] You originally came to troll, but found yourself drawn into mixing some of your actual views along the way once confronted with someone taking you seriously and taking the time to meticulously respond, resulting in a discursive arc in which your statements and claims become more complicated and contradictory along the way as you gradually drop the act.

[b]4.[/b] You are not only new to these ideas, but you are actually a former /pol/yp or otherwise associated with them and so you still cling to their thinking and positions, despite not even authenticating them as your own, for lack of having any you can call your own; and you want to leave them behind, too, but struggle to articulate yourself except through their language.

[b]5.[/b] I have made some grave error and entirely misjudged you, so I have been effectively arguing against a strawman of my own creation, yet I cannot determine how I allowed that to happen (I carefully avoid doing so) and what assumptions or conjectures I made that had no basis in your text.

Honestly I suspect we are actually not as far apart as it seems and that some sort of misunderstanding has developed, but I cannot tell how, just as I cannot reconcile your previous statements with these new ones. I also suspect that you have been going in the right (or rather, post-left) direction, but have somehow been seduced into overtly reactionary and fascoid framing that is warping your worldview into something incoherent and schizophrenic, either before or after this post-left drift, and thus have reached conclusions you may not even realize are so. Unbeknownst to you, some of what you articulate very closely resembles what actual self-identifying fascists and neoreactionaries have told me and appears to be an exercise in reinventing fascism at some level. You may not be a fascist, or at least do not consider yourself one, but you certainly do talk like one and remind me of one (or a few) I have encountered before. If you have no interest in doing Capital's bidding or in any way resembling a fascist, then heed my critiques, for it seems – at least to me – that precisely that is happening. The fact that "your" country was brutalised by fascists does not inoculate you from this, anymore than does a person born in the former Eastern bloc know what communism is.

The main problem I have with your description of why you are a communist (aside from the problematic "public ownership" phrasing and implication that direct democracy requires a certain level of technology) is that it contradicts the conception of communism defined by one of the quotes I hold dear and to which I frequently refer:

>Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

I am a communist because I seek to abolish the present state of things, and with it everything that came before it. That includes historical subjectivity and man's place in it.

Marx's writings were primarily about capitalism and critiques thereof. What work he did beyond that amounted to organising meetings and establishing networks for radical leftists to internationally coordinate toward global communism. What little Marx did write about socialism and communism, however, whether it was his early humanist theorising in The Communist Manifesto and The German Ideology or his later anti/posthumanist works such as Critique of the Gotha Programme, it was apparent that nations had little to no role in it and that the logical conclusion of communism would be their abolition. This perspective, not merely antinationalist or internationalist but postnationalist, informed his activities all the way from his earliest writings, through his First International coordination, to his final works, itself resembling the cosmopolitan and universal character of Marx: a man whose worldview comprised German philosophy, French politics, and English economics, at each step a result of his new exile; who wrote letters to Lincoln and news reports about the American Civil War; whose interests stretched from anthropological works detailing the societies of native Americans to the "Asiatic mode of production"; who concerned himself with workers everywhere, whether it be proles in industrial England or farmers in the countryside, or even the Russian peasants who he thought later in his life very well may have communist potential despite never experiencing industrial capitalism if only they could organise themselves and overthrow the czar (first draft of Marx's letter to Zasulich).

It is for these reasons, and many more, that I assert the impossibility of understanding Marx on his own terms without also comprehending the profound absence of nationality and nationalism in Marx's character and thought. Marx himself was a theoretical vandal, a vagabond who wandered both intellectually and geographically, with no nation to call home nor home to call his own for much of his life. For him, nations were as bourgeois as the governments who controlled them or the capitalists who controlled them. If that were not the case, he would not have been so concerned early on about the insufficiency of local communisms, the need for a world-historical communist movement – a real movement, the nationless nature of the proletariat, and the dangers of not just nationalism but the "barracks communism" that may derive from it.

Marx recognised capitalism's annihilative nature, and I believe even remarked on how well it did the abolitionist work of the real movement for it by destroyed every last tradition and value, though I cannot find the quote at this time. And yet, Marx did not seek to curtail this trend. Perhaps he should have, but how can one do so without necessarily enabling Capital through futile reaction?

There is no saving "your" nation or its national culture. It will die, as all will, whether by capitalism or communism or collapse. This is an inevitability which provokes a variety of responses, including among the most radical and (post-)left among us. Even I, total abolitionist and destroyer of worlds, lament the loss of culture (if only for lack of documentation), even whilst I celebrate their demise. Allowing this inevitability to provoke you into a reaction formation out of frustration for the corrosive spread of capitalist consumerism does not help preserve these things; it only helps Capital control you, all whilst you seek to militate against an unstoppable scourge in defense of an increasingly romanticised and distorted conception of these traditions, values, cultures, and histories, until you either eventually realise that you lost what you were fighting for by fighting for it or succumb to the scourge all the same. Even so, what is it you are fighting for anyway? Everything and everyone you know, everything and everyone you see around you and every tradition and value and culture you encounter and hold dear, is already subsumed within Capital and is already marked by it if not altogether manufactured from it. Can you honestly name an exception free from this? Perhaps they are already dead, all of them, and what you see are merely their possessed remains. Are you so sure you are preparing for battle and not just standing amidst the former site of one lost long ago?

If you do not come to terms with this reality, you will be unable to escape this timeline. You will instead continue down this path of reaction, itself a product of Capital, in the desperate hope that you can somehow restore the world to its idyllic past, uncorrupted by this cancer – just as the fascists who stomped through "your" country had done. All the whilst, Capital continues to autonomise and colonise and consume everything within its ever-growing reach. To reiterate what I said in >>816:

&ltWhy should you care about waning population growth in the country you live in? Why should it matter at all to you that the person working and reproducing there is "from" the country (whatever that means)? What materially do you have to gain (or lose) by concerning yourself with such things? Why do you care about the country at all? Any answers to these questions either result in fundamentally misunderstanding the role of nations and states within capitalism, appealing to spooky fictions that have nothing at all to do with leftism or anything beyond it; or the revelation that your care is misplaced and that nation-states and borders are superfluous if not altogether antithetical to your considerations after all.

You are clinging to a past that does not exist, within a present that is not as it seems, for the sake of a future that will never come. Until you – until we – break from all three, you – and we – will be forever condemned to this timeline.

I sympathise with viewing these cultural artifacts from bygone eras as more authentic and meaningful than the charnel house in which you found them, but no attempt at preserving them nor amount of performative magic will let you leave the Cathedral. If you want to Escape, the only way I can see is by withdrawing from worship, refusing to participate, disrupting the procession, and Exiting to the Outside. That is not done through archaeological expeditions and cultural revivalism; that is done by cultivating new cultures, communist cultures, which practice the freely associative relations that characterise it in the present. If you wish to then decorate that culture with homages to the cultures you call home, then so be it, but so be it in form and not substance because the substance of any real movement, and thus of any real communist, abolishes the present state of things.

Of course Capital will eventually do away with nations and borders as obstacles to accumulation and autonomisation, but that does not mean the revolutionary response is to oppose the abolition of nations and borders. What matters is not the tolling of the bell, but for whom the bell tolls. One can both oppose capital accumulation and autonomisation whilst nonetheless seeking the abolition of nation and borders for ourselves, for the problem is Capital and not necessarily what it destroys – or creates.

I will leave you with this, the only explicit quote I could find from Marx that expresses any sympathy for national struggles, found in the first chapter of Critique of the Gotha Programme:

>It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle – insofar as its class struggle is national, not in substance, but, as the Communist Manifesto says, "in form". But the "framework of the present-day national state", for instance, the German Empire, is itself, in its turn, economically "within the framework" of the world market, politically "within the framework" of the system of states. Every businessman knows that German trade is at the same time foreign trade, and the greatness of Herr Bismarck consists, to be sure, precisely in his pursuing a kind of international policy.


—

Discord is spyware: https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/discord.html

Though I appreciate the offer, it is already difficult enough to convince myself to post here, especially after what has recently occurred which almost certainly now has this entire website surveilled and indefinitely logged, if it wasn't already. I am seriously considering not returning here for that reason, a final straw in a long list of complaints I have about the shoddy privacy and security (e.g. no dereferrer, continued use of CloudFlare) and atrocious mismanagement of this site. If you or anyone else wishes to maintain contact with me even after I leave, E2EE e-mails such as ProtonMail or Tutanota (or PGP) or Matrix are perhaps the only options I am willing to consider at this time.

>>797
Nice spooks nerd,

>Implying nations are a valid point and defending it.

As you know any idea is subjective therefore you can't hold it on an absolute state. The idea of nations is a spook, same as nationalism since it is manmade, does not exist in the nature. So get your spooks away from here

>>823
Post-left is leftists who are ready to leave behind the democratic party plantation

>>1787
is this a joke?

>>1788
Democracy is an hierarchy

>>1795
>Post-left is leftists
>democratic party
this is just leftists, as opposed to libs
post-left is not leftist

>>797
>

>Comrade No. 876 [Reply] [Last]
I am a marxist that became nazbol after reading most of marxes works

>Do I fit in here? I am not just a nationalist tankie, I consider myself post left.
>37 posts and 10 images omitted.
>sAgE No. 1697

>Comrade No. 1912 >>1788
>>823
>Post-left is leftists who are ready to leave behind the democratic party plantation
Comrade No. 1913 >>1795
>>1787
>is this a joke?
>Comrade No. 1920 >>1802
>>1788
>Democracy is an hierarchy
>Comrade No. 1927
>>1795
>Post-left is leftists
>democratic party
>this is just leftists, as opposed to libs
>post-left is not leftist

>>1803
is this a broken bot? why the fuck is the cia using our backwater for testing
gedoutahere