Ennui

Ennui wrote

I feel like post-leftism has to do with rejecting the overall spectacle of leftism, not just the mentality of sacrificing yourself to society by working for the 'common good'. For instance, post-leftism might also include a critique of utopian idealization by leftists and anarchists. It may oppose deluded varieties of anarchism that still qualify as non-workerist, such as the crowd that thinks automation should replace all labor.

While 'post-workerism' is linked to these things, the extent of the philosophy is not immediately obvious from the term.

9

Ennui wrote

Not conservative, but otherwise no political obligations other than acceptance of my beliefs. Their life plan can't be in the opposite vein as mine. Attraction is an odd one, since it clearly matters, but I'm not a sexual person. Really the biggest thing is that we don't constantly get into fights and are quick to let go of our anger when we do. I hate being angry.

4

Ennui wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in Finish this sentence by ziq

...systemic brutality, in an ever revolving circle with no insight into human nature.

alt: ...human nature, and the proof is systemic brutality.

2

Ennui wrote

(pigs = 1.1 million cars) < 1 billion cars on planet Earth. 13.6% (69 million tonnes CO2-equivalent) of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 were agricultural. All feral pigs together release 4.9 million tonnes CO2 according to the article.

Conclusion: Feral pigs are anti-civ anarchists destroying profits for the agricultural sector, which in Australia alone releases 14 times the CO2 equivalent as all feral pigs combined.

Alternatively, there's something like 12.5 million cops in the world. Say each cop produces 5 tons CO2 emissions (I don't know if that's realistic or not). 12.5 x 5 = 62.5 million tons CO2. Therefore, killing all cops would would be 12.7x more effective than killing all feral pigs. Don't check my numbers, please and thank you.

7

Ennui wrote

If your specific brand of communism is just those palatable examples of primitive communism, then you hardly have reason to pick fights with Ziq for opposing Marxist accelerationism other than semantics.

If your only rationale for why they shouldn't diss democracy is that in just those palatable examples of its use wherein everyone actually agrees to the rules of the game and there isn't a minority being unwillingly crushed underfoot, democracy isn't totally authority forming, then you're once again arguing semantics.

But with respect to democracy and communism, there are two problematic positions:

  1. You are the communist who believes in production just enough to make everyone comfortable, cushy, healthy, educated, and so on. That is, you believe in the plausibility of a utopia wherein everyone's desires are the correct, minimally invasive ones, so that the problems of capitalism don't arise.
  2. You are a toxic democracy enthusiast. You believe in stepping on toes in the name of 'getting things done'. You fly to the aid of reformism and partial victories instead of authentically anarchist positions. You build implicit hierarchies by calling yourself an 'organizer', while everyone around you is a 'comrade' devoted to the common good, a perverse social contract.

Achieving the goals of (1) is an impossibility. You will never organize people (of their own free will) successfully enough. You will fail to make a dent in the industrial capitalist machine. By the time the machine is old and rusted, it will be too late. And lastly, to achieve (1) you would have to forsake the anarchist critique of production and commit evils against nature in the name of a human good. (2) is gross and ineffective. It's not a way to live.

I'm not saying that you are (1) or (2), but I am saying that if you aren't, then your critique is a way of blunting the message to achieve a minor clarity. You shouldn't feel like you have to treat every broad offensive against diet-anarchism (the middling space for libsocs whose anarchism is defined by their leftism) as an offensive against your putting to a vote whether we should go to the pub or the park.

12

Ennui wrote

Most of the stuff by the Invisible Committee. It was nice as a history lesson (I had no prior interaction with the revolts/struggles they focused on), but it had virtually no influence on me.

If I were forced to read Kropotkin again, I would regret it now.

A good half of the existentialists. Especially the white ones.

6

Ennui wrote

Made butternut squash soup with squash from the garden. Es schmeckt mir sehr gut, if I'm using that right.

I'm going to go have to overclock my German skills in a few weeks in preparation for the coming semester. The amount of miscellaneous words I have forgotten in so little time is worrying. I forgot to put the umlaut in 'tschüss' the other day.

3

Ennui OP wrote

I had my first intro to Deleuze the other day from a podcast contrasting the war machine and the state, and when I was posting this, I really was thinking u/Tequila_Wolf is going to critique analytic philosophy on those grounds.

If you had to name something from the analytic tradition that you reasonably enjoyed or felt was useful, what would it be?

4

Ennui OP wrote

Alright, that's it. Start saying 'Quine'.

Here's something precise. 'Analytic' refers mostly to the method, which depends on rigorous and constant clarification and is often systematized in abstract logic. Analytic philosophy is very popular in Western academia. Some branches of philosophy that are commonly analytic are mathematical philosophy, epistemology, logic, and philosophy of language. However, the implicit bias is that some philosophers, no matter how systematized they may be, are not considered analytic philosophers (i.e. analytic philosophy often refers to the realm of acceptable philosophy).

Contrast it with philosophers like Hegel, who manages to say so much you're left wondering if he said anything at all.

5

Ennui wrote

Honestly I can’t think of any. I can tell you what I do have, though: confirmation bias. I’ve pretty much convinced myself that anarchism is relevant and an option in any philosophical setting and given any interpretation of the nature of life, which is the only way I can call myself an anarchist despite lacking concrete opinions on most subjects.

This is also how I ignorantly shovel centuries of liberal philosophy (required by my university studies) down my throat with minor indigestion.

5

Ennui wrote

Though it's more of a side criticism, your insistence that market relations be voluntary (though only in appearance) is reminiscent of the pro-capitalism argument that the free market is good because it is voluntary to participate. I don't think it's a good strategy to start a critique of capitalism by admitting that it consists of voluntary relations, when so much of the general critique is about showing how capitalist relations are involuntary (e.g. how I don't really have a choice about working for my shitty employer).

For example, indigenous gift-giving cultural events and norms, that isn't comparable to colonial markets which replaced them, they are perhaps similar in certain aspects but to reduce one to the other is reductive.

I'm not reducing anything to anything by saying both of these are markets. The only similarity explicit in my definition of markets is that they both result in the exchange of goods. Placing non-traditional (i.e. non-European) contexts of exchange alongside the sacred bullshit of free-market right-libertarians is a clear break from capitalist-normalized economics, and I think it's a good thing insofar as it causes people indoctrinated into capitalist economics to look at other forms of exchange.

If you argue that such a broad definition of markets results in a loss of purpose, then I argue any definition that excludes involuntary and non-transactional forms of exchange is a loss of functionality. An analysis of capitalist markets that ignores the role of theft, for instance, would be substantially limited. Corporate theft provides insight into corporate leaders' motivations. There are entire industries devoted to the elimination of theft; theft directly influences the distribution of resources in the market. There are markets built on reintegrating stolen goods into voluntary relations. The supposedly voluntary markets of capitalism are built on centuries of explicit state-mandated theft. So, what, we should just ignore it when talking about exchange? Are you going to coin a new, equally boring term for an economics that focuses on non-bourgeoisie markets? Let us keep the term market and call capitalist-normalized economics by a new term: bullshit.

It does this by focusing on terms like "market", "consumer", etc and framing the capitalist meanings as immutable, as if they were not socially produced in particular historical contexts. The entire science of economics is frequently taught this way, and I think it is unhelpful. This is also a major argument, generally summarized, which I have with the left-wing market anarchists, whose views I find too often to be a stone's toss from the views and actions of anarchist capitalists who I have interacted with. The naturalization of socially produced culture is an absolute plague in these spaces, which is a shame but also exactly what I would expect to conclude. This makes these spaces profoundly unwelcoming to people like me, for intersectional reasons.

I don't disagree with anything said here. Facts.

2

Ennui wrote

I don’t mind if it’s myopic because the content and interest of any given market is provided by that market. I don’t know if your goal is to critique the concept of markets, redefine it, whatever, but the fact that theft, gift-giving, communism and capitalism all imply the transfer of goods, willing or not, is good enough for me. That’s why it’s called left-wing market anarchism instead of just “market”. Particular and proposed markets affect the context and method of exchange.

My apologies if you thought that my board statement that capitalism is theft was a literal definition. What is your definition of markets?

2