Whats the most fedoracore leftist ideology and why is it Anarcho-Nihilism Stirnirfags?

Whats the most fedoracore leftist ideology and why is it Anarcho-Nihilism Stirnirfags?

Other urls found in this thread:

anarchistnews.org/content/against-identity-politics-0
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

NO BULLY

They had their idol destroyed today; it's enough.

Yeah mang i really look into the sexual practices of my philosophers when i decide whether i agree with their works.

How many times do I have to tell you guys that anarcho-nihilism != egoism?

But it does user or should I say enlightened fedora wearer.

Well I guess you've really shown me with this critique. How will I ever recover? :'^(

truly btfo there

Stirner was never "destroyed".
Holla Forums was being butthurt as usual.

You mean except by marx.

Anarcho-Nihilism = Stirner = Egoism = Lifestyle Anarchism

I know this because I am an expert on anarchology because I read the wikipedia page on Bookchin once.

any kind of analytical philosophy

Its Leninism.

Purely because I was told to 'read lenin' by no less than three posters at the same time who had not in fact 'read Lenin'. Who could not accept that democratic centralism and the vanguard were in fact tools to create a stateless, classless society, but an end in themselves.

Also Muke, Muke is a Leninist. A good example of how they don't read.

Having read Lenin, I do have an appreciation for Marxist Leninism and its successes in Cuba and the USSR etc

However, I find its most vocal supporters to be mostly crypto Holla Forumsack red fascists who seemingly just like the aesthetic or something, as they have not in fact read any Lenin.

Not that this applies to all Leninists, but this just seems to be my general experience.

Also on this board they tend to have read the least broadly but have the pretence to suggest that anyone who disagrees with them 'can't into theory'

Much like ancaps will call you an economic illiterate for disagreeing with neoliberal doctrine.

Also

Anarchist Nihilism= The destruction of the bourgeois state with no aim for the contruction of new governance afterwards. The idea being that all of our perceptions are shaped by class contradictions and therefore are tainted with the capitalist mode of thought.

We should therefore seek to eliminate everything remotely bourgeois before we can even think to build a workers state.

The irony of course being that anarchist Nihilism originally rose from bourgeois conditions and must therefore destroy itself eventually.

Socialist Egoism= Morality does not exist, however, it is in our best selfish interest to form unions of egoists. The worker has immense power in his numbers and should form strong egoist unions to take that which they desire.

Forgot my flag

This is more or less correct. Glad to see someone other than myself and the lewd anarcho-nihilist poster who actually knows what anarcho-nihilism is.

You're absolutely right about that, and IMO it's part of the beauty of anarcho-nihilism. It's not a dedicated programme that we intend to be faithful to forever, but more the comportment of the will towards pure negation (i.e. Active nihilism) and its collision with anarchist theory and praxis. As far as nihilists are concerned, in the present moment we can't make any claims about after-the-revolution when revolutions are fundamentally an overturning of history, wholly original and unconditioned by the past. We can't keep our hopes for how things will turn out without reproducing the bourgeois values structured into us, so in this present time we argue that what we need is essentially a more minimalistic and focused anarchism towards passionate creative destruction.

When revolution finally comes, if it ever does, anarcho-nihilism will have served its purpose and will destroy itself. So you can't really be a nihilist without embracing the irony and the absurdity of it. Making it ironically kind of Kierkegaardian.

Why are you so much of a SJW then?
There's nothing more bourgeois than being a filthy SJW like you are n1x.

What should I read to gain a full understanding of anarcho-nihilism, n1x?

Of course, the obvious problem with that theory is that revolutions are not short-term events that exchange one reality for another. Revolutions, and particularly a proposed global revolution, are conducted over the course of decades against reactionary forces that do have established plans. A failure to prepare and predict has always been the downfall of anarchist revolutions.

smh ofc someone would make an off-topic post about le idpol and my character.

Because the rabid and often irrational reaction on Holla Forums to "idpol" has lead to reactionary elements having a platform to push their bullshit by pretending to be following the same line of thought. Which is unsurprising considering how dangerous the critique of identity politics is in Holla Forums's climate when no one reads theory and internalizes reactionary memes and ideology. So I consider it important to clarify what the difference is between identity politics and socialist/anarchist feminism/race theory/queer theory. There's no reason the two can't coexist, and it's ridiculous to constantly give the paranoiac justification that any feminist discourse will automatically make us get co-opted by liberals, while more or less inviting Nazis to post here and creating common ground with them - who are undoubtedtly the same sort of influence.

I consider gender to be one of the bourgeois values that nihilism aims to negate, and liberalism doesn't offer a solution for that. It only reifies categories of identity so that new markets can be opened up and revolutionary fervor can be stomped. It makes the experience of being a marginalized identity nicer, but it still enforces identity as such rather than destroying the essentialism in identity discourse which says that we are all essentially a blob of social constructs rather than unique individuals.

So IMO we also have to be critical of the unique dynamics of these other struggles and work according to their logic in order to destroy identity categories.

You should read Aragorn!'s two essays on nihilism and anarchy, and also Blessed is the Flame if you can get a copy.

I have the text of the latter but have been busy lately and gotten off-track digitizing it.


True, but the process of anarcho-nihilism destroying itself and being exchanged with a new leadership of recolutionaries wouldn't likely be a one-off event either. It would be a process where anarcho-nihilism would comingle with the revolutionary values being created to replace the bourgeois ones. Nihilism would still play a role as the old world is destroyed in full, but will become less and less dominant as the proletariat begins to for the first time make positive value claims rather than conform to negative, liberal bourgeois values.

Nah, post-left anarcho-nihilism AKA machiavellian entryism AKA P.L.A.N AKA kool kids klub is not fedora-core, that's marxist-leninist.

Annils are skeletons *rattles*

So you aim to destroy identity categories by supporting stupid shit like "socialist/anarchist feminism/race theory/queer theory" that inevitably leads to idpol shit that in turn upholds the very identity categories that you claim to want to destroy.
Ok, got it. Makes a lot of sense :^)

I bet you have never read any anarcho-queer theory correct? Its easy to disregard it if you judge it on superficial level by reconizing it as identity politics instead what it actually is indentity abolishment Educate yourself before you embarshing yourself.

Sorry, was the answer you were looking for that I have a fetish for pegging and femdom? :^^^^)

smh, read this:
anarchistnews.org/content/against-identity-politics-0

Well… do you?

So, you are counting on the marxists with their planning and coordination to keep the revolution from disintegrating? I can live with that. Just don't try to halt grain shipments during a famine out of respect for the rights of kulaks.

It is easy to abolish things that do not exist.

It exists in people their mind, they are concepts. And Everybody thinks in concepts like nationality, family or state or whatever.

It was just a joke. This isn't the /leftykink/ thread :^)


What makes you think that I would expect that?

I mean, it also depends on the Marxists you're talking about. I think that leftcom and the libertarian strains of Marxism are chill, but I'm not expecting M-Ls and Leninists to accomplish anything other than reproducing the same bougeois authority values that they just deny as being issues.

To be fair, anarchists - even the insurrectionary variants - have been pretty much just as guilty as Marxists of vanguardism. It just manifests in different ways, and I'm not sure whether or not it's something that can be avoided or that should be avoided.

Usually I refer to Nietzsche's Zarathustra metaphor when talking about this: I can show you the way across the tightrope, but I can't make you walk it. It's something you need to do for yourself. I'm not sure that I'm against anarchists being in a similar position and not disavowing their aristocratic value-creator spirit, but obviously the line is where authority - that is, telling people what to do and making them do it - starts to come into play. But it's not quite that simple, either. It's a more complicated issue than I think most people realize. Anarchists seem to think that we can fix everything with pure democracy, and M-Ls seem to think that this is just a non-issue and that there's nothing at all wrong with an authoritative Vanguard telling everyone what to do.

But like I said before, revolutions aren't conditioned by the past. So it's kind of antithetical to that and my anarcho-nihilist views to make claims about how things would work out exactly when revolution comes. We would have a much better idea about how to guide a revolution when we have a frame of reference and aren't just making guesses based on how things are in bourgeois society.

Which is the definition of "imaginary."

How can people even be this stupid smh

Because I am certain that you recognize that someone on the revolutionary side is going to need to have a system for logistics, a political strategy in the presence of counterrevolutionary forces, a military theory that is not just "guys with guns hiding in the mountains," and a reliable plan for the productiin of critical resources.

Idealism is a logic broken at its very foundation.

Maybe, but I'm not really interested in dealing with those sorts of questions, because I don't think they're remotely relevant to our context. We're nowhere close to revolution, and we're going to be addressing these sorts of questions from within bourgeois society and values and the history of bourgeois and reactionary societies. So, I don't think in the first place that we can adequately or accurately address these sorts of questions right now, and that talking about these after-the-revolution questions incessantly is really just ideological daydreaming.

The point you're trying to press is that anarchists are incapable of doing any of the things you're talking about, so to argue against that I'd have to put on the hat of an anarcho-communist/syndicalist and talk about why I think that it's possible to do all that from the bottom-up. But I think that those arguments are just as weak and pedantic and Marxists being willfully ignorant of what anarchists have to say on the matter, and just taking it for granted that centralized and hierarchical variants of socialism just werk.


Speculative realism is the only path to the truth of radical non-truth and contingency my dude ;^)