Tumgik
#synthesis anarchism
miochimochi · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
Finished the back of the unity jacket. Need to think of more to put on this one. Mainly trying to think of something to paint on the hood. Maybe a black head?
40 notes · View notes
toastiemcstrudel · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
A few flag re/designs of various political ideologies I made.
African socialism
Agrarian socialism
Degrowth
Synthesis anarchism
2 notes · View notes
bimboficationblues · 7 days
Note
what are the differences between marxism and anarchism?
one is based on the writings of Karl Marx and the other is based on the writings of Jean-Luc Anarquis
the respective ways in which they annoy me
it's difficult to get precise because anarchism is notably more expansive, which is sort of inherent to its nature. Marxism is thoroughly modern and often emphasizes its breakage with the previous radicalisms and socialisms that influenced it (while also being explicitly based on the models and preoccupations of a specific guy or set of guys). and although a lot of anarchism is to some extent also modern and similarly birthed out of 18th-century radicalism, it has a claim - much like communism outside of Marxism - to a longer, more extensive intellectual and political history. not to mention these two are, both being forms of socialism, kind of on a gradient (communization theory is a good contemporary example of a synthesis of the two). any attempt to kind of boil down either, and framing it as a binary in the first place, is going to miss a lot.
to bang my metapolitics drum: goals should be derived from values, and strategy and tactics are derived from both. I feel like you're probably familiar with the strategic/tactical disagreements among Marxists and anarchists (parties, cooperatives, state power, etc.) because they're...fairly obvious, so I'm more interested in emphasizing that first process.
there are (or at least can be) a number of overlapping values between Marxism and anarchism, even if the substantive content can vary. I think a notable breaking point is the central object of their ire. Marxism is interested in the rule of capital and its representatives, how this distorts and deranges social life, and more broadly how class conflict emerges from different methods of organizing social needs in ways that are destructive/irrational/restrictive on flourishing. I think anarchism's attention is towards processes of obedience and submission, how is it that people come to be positioned in hierarchical and coercive dynamics and either lose or surrender their personal and collective liberty, and how the state/political organization act as the chief source of this repression. I think there's obvious linkage here, and I wouldn't say they're mutually exclusive, but where you place your emphases matters and is going to lead you to different assessments of goals.
they primarily split on the question of what to do about political power, which I would suggest is related but non-identical to the break over what to do about political economy. assuming a revolutionary scenario (which not all anarchists do, see the individualist strain derived from thinkers like Stirner which I am somewhat influenced by, but this is the conventional tale of the Bakunin/Marx split): should political power, conceived as a weapon of class rule, be seized in some capacity before we seek its full abolition, or should this mode or conception of politics be abolished through the act of making revolution?
again, there's kind of a spectrum of answers here. I think how you flesh out the substantive content of specific values will inform where you land on this question, of exactly how to get to statelessness. fwiw, I think nobody has really cracked the problem of the state as a force with its own inertia and limitations for forming a desirable society vs. the demands of a defensive revolutionary position, but I think recognizing that it is a dilemma is more fruitful than just pretending it doesn't exist or like a clean answer has been handed down from on high by our predecessors.
and, to some extent, there's also a disparity (though not universal between the camps) on the matter of whether a post-capitalist society should have things like markets - not all anarchists are necessarily communists. not all Marxists are either but they usually at least pretend to be.
anyway, I think there's obviously a lot of other historical and ideological differences and tensions for a variety of reasons, but I think these are some of the most interesting threads right now. in conclusion,
youtube
29 notes · View notes
symmetrysys · 9 months
Text
anarcha feminism was formulated by weaving together feminism with anarchist principles. queer anarchism was an expansion of, and further development on, anarcha feminism that integrated queer theory.
we want to do something similar with neurodivergency and plurality, ie weaving together neurodivergency and anarchist principles to create a neurodivergent centric anarchism and then further developing on it with plural positivity and a synthesis with queer anarchism to reach an ultimate goal of plural anarchism
however we have no idea of where to begin. is there even a base layer of positive, radical neurodivergent theory to spring off of? -Evi
80 notes · View notes
thenyanguardparty · 1 year
Note
okay stay with me here.
I remember asking you a question before and you responded with calling anarchists liberals. I kind of went “that doesn’t sound right”, because I found anarchists who were definitely not aligned with any liberal values. And I still don’t think all are like that, since a lot of people aren’t 100% inflexible about everything and also don’t spend all their time on the internet.
But i was reading theory, been using it to inform myself and consider where I personally stand to see if what I am saying I stand does really describe where I stand. Or if it can be called into question where I may change my opinion.
I still look into multiple facets of leftism online (mostly Marxists) to try to see if someone says anything genuinely interesting and makes sense to note.
And, I mean, I’m not trying to lump in at the same time because online can skew views of what is more common of people. But, when I try looking at some discussions and such of at least an Amount of anarchists I find on the internet specifically…
I get it.
I get what you mean by liberals now.
I used to know a marxist who described anarchism as a synthesis of utopian socialism and liberalism and it really is like that. Fundamentally the focus on "freedom," particularly defined (if at all) generally in line with a liberal (more specifically petit bourgeois) understanding of freedom, means they haven't shaken off their roots as a radical spin on liberalism that breaks with the conventional social contract of the state.
(this is not a moral condemnation by association, it's a criticism of the framework)
31 notes · View notes
nonameweebu · 8 months
Text
Tiqqun cursed me to Intellectual Depression...
By : Santiago "Weebu" Pemo
Tumblr media
As a French reader, I am much more impacted and attached to French philosophy and its theorists than most people. I feel a deep connection to the language I grew up with and these theories that so deeply resonate with my being, some ideas and vague concepts I have had since the dawn of my political consciousness, that also appear to be fundamental for these intellectuals, way before my time. There is something truly eye opening about finding deeply avant-garde theory in your language, that has also pretty directly impacted the politics of your own country, to a certain degree. Tiqqun for me is the representation of the search for ideals, the insatiable pursuit of knowledge that I experience, and will experience. Dense and complicated, pretentious and critical, Tiqqun's works have everything to be categorized a million times by fruitless adjectives, but the only one truly fitting for such a titan of theory is "impressive".
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Tiqqun was a French philosophical journal, even if i would categorize it more as a periodic publication and recollection of intellectual texts. It was actively published between 1999 and 2001, supposedly dissolving after the 9/11 attacks for fear of repression and a needed break from the political world, as some claim. Why would they do that? Well, Tiqqun was THE most radical publication France ever got a hold of, but specially because the tradition it subscribed into was not a typical one. Insurectionary Anarchism, Situationism and Communization (In both a general and specific manner, we will go over that later), as well as the large French school of Post-Structuralism and Post-Modernism, Tiqqun is a beacon of modern French radical philosophy. And for how complex what the journal propositions can be, It is no surprise that this lovely piece of theory has gone severely unnoticed for the average "leftist". It's a literary piece at heart, a several hundred pages long poem, it's a work of passion to the world of philosophy and theoretical politics. And that is what makes the publication one of the most beautiful yet disheartening concepts to read, as well as being absolutely groundbreaking, and a read that will challenge anyone's unprepared views about many topics, since it introduces complex notions of the "Invisible Party", "Metaphysical Critique Exercices", "The Theory Of Bloom" and of course, their own spin on "Communization Theory".
"Communization" is a complicated topic, a theory not for the weak minded, something pretty much existent in the own confines of our exhausted and depressed intellectual capacities, but it still manages to be fresh enough to be adaptable to everyone. The lack of dogmatism in the writing, the synthesis of concepts and the post-post modernity of its analysis is unlike anything you can currently get your hands on. But the core concepts are understandable, and can make you rethink your own base ideology from the ground up. At least that is what happened to me. Communization, as the theory that rejects the DOTP from a marxist understanding of revolutionary action and procedures, is not a common piece of thought even in online discourse. Im not here to explain in depth this concept (as it is the case for another article of mine), but what Is important here is how Tiqqun took this theory, very marginal Left Communist piece of theory, and built it, almost single-handedly, from the ground up once again. The revolution that Tiqqun brought by explicitly importing Insurrectionary Anarchist ideas, as well as a general anarchist ethos too, to a concept that wouldn't necessarily hold it, was the stepping stone towards the erasure of "Anarchist"and "Statist" labels in the ultra left, leading to a much more fluid interaction and development of ideas, breaking the dogmas that can follow the Meta-Narratives of certain strains of "left wing" ideology. Meta-Narratives that still hold a lot of theorists back when it comes to the full liberation of their brain, towards a greater understanding of the world, even if that might come with far greater consequences, like absolutely breaking your hope and desire for the world, but not in a very Nihilist way, but a purely emotional sense. Tiqqun is very emotional, and more than anything, it appeals to the individual's understanding of them, and what that said individual wants to take for their own personal benefit. It's what I would call some kind of very well executed decentralized communal thought process.
And this is key In my personal development, as I originally came from a much more orthodox Anarcho-Communist conception of ideology, with its own dogmatism and ingrained fallacies that even back then bothered me, this fluidity and lack of strict structure that the ideas of Tiqqun have allowed me to break down the walls I imposed on myself. And that is what makes their version of Communization so specific. Not only they detail and talk about the general concept that an author like Dauvé could have, but they go further than him. They always do. That is the magic of the journal, going as far as it is possible to think. Their analysis is clean, including some fairly (and sadly) forgotten theories like Situationism at the heart of their vision, specially when they mention anything to do with the "invisible party". Avant-Gardism is the core ethos of what Tiqqun wanted. They did not want to be comprehended by the general population, they didn't write for us to use our texts as proof of the subjective validity of our ideology, but a job. They had a specific vision of the world, a ruthless one, one that did not spare any badmouthing of any concept as long as it fit their worldview, one that is marvelously constructed. A worldview Guy Debord would have been proud to read.
But you simply cannot just read Tiqqun for enjoyment, as that would be too complicated for anyone with less than 50 degrees on philosophy. You read Tiqqun to experience the whole thought of the "Invisible Party", and you do so with an aim : to criticize your ideas. Tiqqun, for the more well read and fundamentally built reader is primarily an exercise for contrasting metaphysics. The variety of the texts, and the diversity of what they are able to deal with in those gives a complexity to their thought I have barely seen anywhere else. Tiqqun is not a manifesto, Tiqqun is a collection of the greatest thoughts of the french ultra-left of the 90's, one very much involved with all the social movements of its time but retaining its "armchair" critique typical of other strains of Left Communism. But why would anyone listen to them? Why care for Tiqqun? Because the modernity of their ideas is something that will put you in a state of "intellectual depression".
No, this is not a Deleuze reference (even if it might as well be). It is simply a statement to the greatness of Tiqqun's writings, ones that challenges you so much, you stay in a state of perplexity that is hard to achieve with most theory collections. Tiqqun made me depressed, because it challenged my traditional views so much, that I could never conceive traditional modern theory the same way. It radically affected my relationship with not only political and philosophical texts, but also with the politics that affect my day to day life : parliamentary politics, for example. I no longer trust what I used to, I no longer want what I wanted, and I no longer seek what I tried to find when i first embarked on the world of politics. Nothing feels enough, I want more. Satisfaction became a secondary need, but reflection and constant upgrading of my own ideas is what I aspired to, like I mentioned at the beginning of this article. Even my actions, at the scale of my fairly boring small town changed, the discourse I have with people interested or not on politics has changed so much, to the point that I feel as my ideas are exclusive to me. Exactly what Tiqqun is all about, but that does not mean it's a concept full of positives, specially living In a world where our action is necessary and important, even if at times fully pointless.
Holding radical positions in pretty much any aspect of thought is exhausting in the stage of deceiving and worse than before social democratic compromise reformist policies of the present day, one that does not even serve the petty bourgeois it sought to protect to begin with. Repeating the same things, same concepts, theories and ideas over and over again to people oblivious to them is the greatest challenge an active militant or passionate anti-capitalist can face. But the breath of fresh air Tiqqun's expression and interpretation of the classics, as well as an introduction to the newer theories that SHOULD take a larger part in our new theoretical and practical developments is very much needed in the modern day landscape. It's the best of both worlds, In a style you can hardly dislike. Why? Because of the variety of it.
As I mentioned at the beginning, Tiqqun is a collection of texts, but it didn't exactly end in 2001. The publication of several and very complex, pretty much full scale books around 2004-2010 revitalized the scene, specially taking into account how un-finished their work can seem to some. It is not a fully developed program, a truly new political ideology or thought model, but simply good theory, and these newer additions completed an already rich project. But what was important about Tiqqun's post-mortem publications is not anything published under their name, but more so an associate group that can very much be the same people that conformed the original secret council of the Tiqqun redaction, that being "The Invisible Committee". As many of you know, this neo-Tiqqunist collective made one of the most important works out of the modern french scene, named "The Insurrection To Come", a book so popular, it was the object of all the far right moral panics on an international scale, doing ravages to the brain of Fox News redactors. But what really mattered there was how it affected my perspective, as it was one of the first texts of the sort that i ever had the opportunity to read, and is considered a cornerstone of the insurrectionary movement as a whole, revered globally and by a large variety of individuals, on and outside of internet discourse. Yes, it is not Tiqqun, but its closeness with the original intellectual group makes it a product of the original thought of the Invisible Party.
Game changing, In every aspect, even on terms of rights and politics, on domains of repression of radical thought, even. In November 2008, Julien Copat, one of the known members of Tiqqun's redaction was arrested by french authorities under pretext of "Participating on a terrorist action that derailed a train" In a small locality in the rural center of the nation (Tarnac, hence giving its name to the "Tarnac Affair"). And this case, that lasted until around 4-5 years ago, caught enough traction for my young and impressionable brain to know about it, years later when the case resumed after a long break. And this was the first case I ever saw where radical thought leaders were attacked falsely based purely on the radicality of their writings, something pretty much without precedent at that time. And it was the reason why I even know about the publication to begin with, and so was the case for a large amount of young teenagers, who got a newly ignited passion towards these ideas, brewing ever since the intellectual rebellion of May 68, bringing more air to the scene than any other project before. It has been one of the few judicial cases I went deep in, and that exposed more clearly than any other case in modern times, how the punishment great thinkers receive under the rule of the bourgeoisie. It was an event that radicalized me indirectly.
The reason why I consider Tiqqun to be so heavy on my brain is because of how real it is. Never had I seen a fusion of extremely theoretical and technical philosophical theory mixed with a focus on praxis without precedents, specially in a time where political actions from the proletariat are ramping up in power, intensity and frequency once again, like a clock. Tiqqun represents the non-nihilistic view of revolutionary action, with the sadness that comes with knowing the truths behind the movements and the ideas that power them. That is what brings sadness to my soul. It was a necessary step in my development, and I feel as if it's just a reflection of what the general population can feel about the exploding liberal status quo, but the people on our side of theory know the reasons why. Tiqqun gave me the keys to understand better the world but also the revolutionary thought that i wholeheartedly stick to, and at the same time, Tiqqun amplified my Capitalist Realism to levels I had barely ever seen before. Tiqqun, In all its greatness, doomed me to intellectual depression, and I will not recover this time.
Thank you Tiqqun, really.
17 notes · View notes
dagwolf · 18 days
Note
do you feel the critique of vanguardism you hold applies to all forms of party-like organization? like platformist/especifist organization for example?
Well, a criticism of the platform is that it Bolshevizes anarchism. I'm familiar with Malatesta's critique of the platform. If there's synthesis, class struggle, or platformist federations in anarchism (I'm taking this from the Anarchist FAQ), then I'd fall into the class struggle group most likely.
2 notes · View notes
Text
Guys I need Ebook recommendations, assume I have access to almost any book in digital format but just need recommendations to learn the existence of amazing books you have in mind because I need more books!
actually I have 500+ PDF'S and EPUBs already downloaded that I still haven't actually read yet because I'm a serial book hoarder that still needs more
I'm up for any recommendations but to give you an idea of what I like I'm currently reading PIHKAL by Alexander Shulgin and his lovely wife Ann and on my To Read list are books such as Neuromancer, Do androids dream of electric sheep, Aldous Huxley's Doors of perception, Jack Kerouac's On the road, the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, the southern reach trilogy, Naomi Klein's NoLogo, John Steinbeck's of mice and men etc
Also of interest and often on my long To do list are books like Nikola Tesla's handbooks, Leftist theory and history (anarchism, communism, anarcho-syndicalism, direct action), books about organic chemistry and drug synthesis and research papers with a particular interest in Phenethylamines (relax, I'm too poor and stupid and attention deficit to have a lab and equipment and time to actually make drugs, I just like to know what's happening in our brains on these chemicals and the process that synthesises them and why/how).
Science fiction books too I'm very interested in, books on plants, ancient civilizations, gardening and sewing, wilderness survival, books that have movies but the book is actually better like Coraline, books on magic and mysticism of any variety, etc
Anything else you would like to recommend but don't think I'd enjoy go ahead and do it anyway. As you can see I'm interested in a lot of stuff. Please recommend good sites for ebooks too as so far I frequent:
Global greye books
Z-library
Project Gutenberg
Library Genesis
5 notes · View notes
obiternihili · 2 years
Text
You know the gist of dialectics?
thesis + antithesis -> synthesis?
anarchism and communism are antitheses.
I want the synthesis
3 notes · View notes
argyrocratie · 7 months
Text
Between vice and virtue, there is no essential difference; what makes one or the other is the condiment, it is the diet, it is the goal, it is the intention, it is the measure, it is a host of things. Similarly, between property and theft, there is no difference in principle; what constitutes the justice of the one and the infamy of the other is the conditions that accompany them, it is the circumstances that condition them.
-Proudhon Explained by Himself (Letter to Villaumé, 1856)
I strongly believe the reason why a minimum of ownership is always tolerated and even encouraged is personal or individual autonomy. This has been clearly explained by Woodburn for the Hazda. They can loose and gamble away everything except the few possessions –arrows, hunting bow, leather bag—that are needed to enable them to stay alive and find food. More generally possession gives one at least the right, ability, and pleasure to give, as Freuchen’s Inuit companion and Nayaka informants testify. Individual autonomy requires a minimal amount of control on material things because, simply, everybody should be able to fend for him/herself and remain thus autonomous. Another important reason why a little capital is needed is that various spheres of exchange and transactions exist side by side. Entering thus various deals with others requires that one has the means to initiate partnership with other parties, especially outside one’s immediate circle of allies and kin. Depriving everybody of any right to own anything would deny personal autonomy and in a way cancel the possibility of freedom to associate. (…) Although autonomy and equality seem to go hand in hand, when it comes to allocation and transfers of resources, a certain amount of Hegelian contradiction comes to the surface. In order to transact equally one needs to limit ownership as much as possible, but in order to insure autonomy one cannot limit it too much either. There is no synthesis but an ongoing tension, an unbalanced equilibrium which characterizes anarchic-gregarious, non-structural and open-aggregated communities. That is what makes them complex in a truly “organic” sense, like living organisms, not like automobile engines.
-Charles J-H Macdonald, “Cooperation, Sharing and Reciprocity (Sharing without giving, Receiving without owing)”
0 notes
resistancemarxistblog · 9 months
Text
"The NEP and the Kronstadt Uprising", from Hue and Cry over Kronstadt (1938) by Leon Trotsky
Victor Serge, who, it would seem, is trying to manufacture a sort of synthesis of anarchism, POUMism, and Marxism, has intervened very unfortunately in the polemic about Kronstadt. In his opinion, the introduction of the NEP one year earlier could have averted the Kronstadt uprising. Let us admit that. But advice like this is very easy to give after the event. It is true, as Victor Serge remembers, that I had proposed the transition to the NEP as early as 1920. But I was not at all sure in advance of its success. It was no secret to me that the remedy could prove to be more dangerous than the malady itself. When I met opposition from the leaders of the party, I did not appeal to the ranks, in order to avoid mobilizing the petty bourgeoisie against the workers. The experience of the ensuing twelve months was required to convince the party of the need for the new course. But the remarkable thing is that it was precisely the Anarchists all over the world who looked upon the NEP as ... a betrayal of communism. But now the advocates of the Anarchists denounce us for not having introduced the NEP a year earlier.
In 1921 Lenin more than once openly acknowledged that the party’s obstinate defense of the methods of Military Communism had become a great mistake. But does this change matters? Whatever the immediate or remote causes of the Kronstadt rebellion, it was in its very essence a mortal danger to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Simply because it had been guilty of a political error, should the proletarian revolution really have committed suicide to punish itself?
Or perhaps it would have been sufficient to inform the Kronstadt sailors of the NEP decrees to pacify them? Illusion! The insurgents did not have a conscious program and they could not have had one because of the very nature of the petty bourgeoisie. They themselves did not clearly understand that what their fathers and brothers needed first of all was free trade. They were discontented and confused but they saw no way out. The more conscious, i.e., the rightist elements, acting behind the scenes, wanted the restoration of the bourgeois regime. But they did not say so out loud. The “left” wing wanted the liquidation of discipline, “free soviets,” and better rations. The regime of the NEP could only gradually pacify the peasant, and, after him, the discontented sections of the army and the fleet. But for this time and experience were needed.
Most puerile of all is the argument that there was no uprising, that the sailors had made no threats, that they “only” seized the fortress and the battleships. It would seem that the Bolsheviks marched with bared chests across the ice against the fortress only because of their evil characters, their inclination to provoke conflicts artificially, their hatred of the Kronstadt sailors, or their hatred of the Anarchist doctrine (about which absolutely no one, we may say in passing, bothered in those days). Is this not childish prattle? Bound neither to time nor place, the dilettante critics try (seventeen years later!) to suggest that everything would have ended in general satisfaction if only the revolution had left the insurgent sailors alone. Unfortunately, the world counterrevolution would in no case have left them alone. The logic of the struggle would have given predominance in the fortress to the extremists, that is, to the most counterrevolutionary elements. The need for supplies would have made the fortress directly dependent upon the foreign bourgeoisie and their agents, the White emigres. All the necessary preparations toward this end were already being made. Under similar circumstances only people like the Spanish Anarchists or POUMists would have waited passively, hoping for a happy outcome. The Bolsheviks, fortunately, belonged to a different school. They considered it their duty to extinguish the fire as soon as it started, thereby reducing to a minimum the number of victims.
0 notes
miochimochi · 1 month
Text
Tumblr media
My idea for the hood design for my unity jacket! 3 layers, black cat head, would put one on each side.
1 note · View note
freshdumpsmonthly · 10 months
Text
32-Rbit (2018)
"...I don't remember the first time I connected to the internet. But I liked it. I thought that in that parallel world I had somehow reached freedom. It was anarchic, anonymous, and best of all it was free. In that utopian time, I was bold and naïve. And I was really convinced that happiness could be reached by pressing on a key. But I was wrong. And when I understood what was happening, it was impossible to escape... While enjoying it for free, they watch us with enthusiasm and with the algorithm, they manipulate our emotions. That's how they managed to make Kardashian's ass the synthesis of our desires. But through this glory hole only the shadows of reality emerge. And without realizing it, we became the witnesses of how the telephone became smart but also, how human stupidity became liquid. And how we get stuck on this lubricious 32 bit drool that smears everything and everyone... I am lonely and I have forgotten everything. As soon as I open my eyes, I connect myself. And I think I will disconnect myself when I will close them. I make the same mistake over and over again. But I cling to the certainty that one can solve everything with Ctrl+Z. I no longer belong to myself. And my will hangs like a cowhide over a trunk."
— Victor Orozco Ramirez
See also: [ Jun Kurosawa's short films ] [ Indefinite Pitch (2016) ]
0 notes
grandhotelabyss · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
I don't know. When I seriously read Anatomy of Criticism in 2015—I had only browsed or been assigned articles here and there since college—I was just getting around to a book that had long been on the endless to-read list rather than picking up something I somehow thought to be urgent and relevant. If there's been a surge in his readership recently, I can think of three possible reasons, two of them local and the third more of a zeitgeist matter:
a wing of the dissident online intellectual anon-sphere memed him into relevance for some audiences (see here)
the other two big midcentury Canadian humanities intellectuals also seem to be having a revival (Marshall McLuhan's been mentioned everywhere in the last decade after a period of relative neglect; Hugh Kenner has enjoyed a more modest but still decisive comeback, with, for example, the publication of the Kenner-Davenport letters), so why not Frye?
our era of fragmentation and atomization has created a hunger in all areas for constructionist rather than deconstructionist thinkers, for less solve and more coagula, and Frye as much as anyone synthesized the whole of western literature, a synthesis that, as you remark, resembles encyclopedic modernist novels like Ulysses and The Magic Mountain rather than the anarchic gadfly sensibility of postmodern theory
1 note · View note
colliecan · 1 year
Text
synthesis (see: probably just inadvertent plagiarism) of random ideas, ofc i’m high, but i’m thinking that maybe it’d be easier to reframe working towards Communism(TM) as it’s most basic first step, treat everyday relationships with consciously more mutuality, however u can figure to express that, such as to start building relationship skills necessary to have like solidarity and kinda setting a foundation for it by being anarchic(?) with ppl in ur life. like those relational skills seem concretely addressable and people can be conscious of its effects in real time, it’s not like they feel expected to read so many books or be volunteering all the time and actively protesting etc etc in order for the world to change. it feels like the simplest start since it’s based on relatively individual choices that are accessible just by being conscious abt it, plus it seems like it’d be a way to address the issue of people like not empathizing with others to the point that they won’t even consider a more egalitarian worldview or even a hopeful worldview, but like when u treat others kinder, they’re more inclined to treat at least you kinder, and maybe u can tell them how u’ve been conscious abt it and the effects u’ve experienced and maybe they have like some tiny ass seed of empathy now. and like ‘just be nice’ is on its face just a distraction/delusion, but i think it’s a means that can enable greater means toward the end that is Communism(TM), and i think it’s one that can be woven into introductions to more radical ideas, it feels like it’s something that can’t be reasonably censored/contained and yet can be extrapolated towards political organization bc u necessarily need empathetic people to do a communism and building ur relationships with conscious and informed mutuality (idfk) is how u practice and promote empathy. sorry for subjecting y’all to my galaxy brain high moments but it’s kinda annoying to me too. say hi to youtube + like comment and subscribe
0 notes
damnesdelamer · 3 years
Text
Recommended reading for leftists
Introduction and disclaimer:
I believe, in leftist praxis (especially online), the sharing of resources, including information, must be foremost. I have often been asked for reading recommendations by comrades; and while I am by no means an expert in leftist theory, I am a lifelong Marxist, and painfully overeducated. This list is far from comprehensive, and each author is worth exploring beyond the individual texts I suggest here. Further, none of these need to be read in full to derive benefit; read what selections from each interest you, and the more you read the better. Many of these texts cannot truly be called leftist either, but I believe all can equip us to confront capitalist hegemony and our place within it. And if one comrade derives the smallest value or insight herefrom, we will all be better for it. After all... La raison tonne en son cratère. Alone we are naught, together may we be all. Solidarity forever.
***
(I have split these into categories for ease of navigation, but there is plenty of overlap. Links included where available.)
Classics of socialist theory
~
Capital (vol.1) by Karl Marx Marx’s critique of political economy forms the single most significant and vital source for understanding capitalism, both in our present and throughout history. Do not let its breadth daunt you; in general I feel it’s better to read a little theory than none, but nowhere is this truer than with regards to Capital. Better to read 20 pages of Capital than 150 pages of most other leftist literature. This is not a book you need to ‘finish’ in order to benefit from, but rather (like all of Marx’s work) the backbone of theory which you will return to throughout your life. Read a chapter, leave it, read on, read again. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf
The Prison Notebooks by Antonio Gramsci In our current epoch of global neoliberal capitalism, Gramsci’s explanation of hegemony is more valuable than much of the economic or outright revolutionary analyses of many otherwise vital theory. Particularly following the coup attempt and election in America, as well as Brexit and abusive government responses to Covid, but the state violence around the world and the advent of fascism reasserts Gramsci as being as pertinent and prophetic now as amidst the first rise of fascism. https://abahlali.org/files/gramsci.pdf
Imperialism: The Highest Stage Of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin Like Marx, for many Lenin’s work is the backbone of socialist theory, particularly in pragmatic terms. In much of his writing Lenin focuses on the practical processes of revolutionary transition from capitalism to communism via socialism and proletarian leadership (sometimes divisively among leftists). Imperialism is perhaps most valuable today for addressing the need for internationalist proletarian support and solidarity in the face of global capitalist hegemony, arguably stronger today than in Lenin’s lifetime. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/imperialism.pdf
Socialism: Utopian And Scientific by Friedrich Engels Marx’s partner offers a substantial insight into the material reality of socialism in the post-industrial age, offering further practical guidance and theory to Marx and Engels’ already robust body of work. This highlights the empirical rigour of classical Marxist theory, intended as a popular text accessible to proletarian readers, in order to condense and to some extent explain the density of Capital. Perhaps even more valuable now than at the time it was first published. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm
In Defense Of Marxism by Leon Trotsky It has been over a decade since I have read any Trotsky, but this seems like a very good source to get to grips with both classical Marxist thought and to confront contemporary detractors. In many ways, Trotsky can be seen as an uncorrupt symbol of the Leninist dream, and in others his exile might illustrate the dangers of Leninism (Stalinism) when corrupt, so who better to defend the virtues of the system many see as his demise? https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/dom.pdf
The Conquest Of Bread by Pyotr Kropotkin Krapotkin forms the classical backbone of anarchist theory, and emerges from similar material conditions as Marxism. In many ways, ‘the Bread book’ forms a dual attack (on capitalism and authoritarianism of the state) and defence (of the basic rights and needs of every human), the text can be seen as foundational to defining anarchism both in overlap and starkly in contrast with Marxist communism. This is a seminal and eminent text on self-determination, and like Marx, will benefit the reader regardless of orthodox alignment. https://libcom.org/files/Peter%20Kropotkin%20-%20The%20Conquest%20of%20Bread_0.pdf
Leftism of the 20th Century and beyond
~
Freedom Is A Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, And The Foundations Of A Movement by Angela Davis This is something of a placeholder for Davis, as everything she has ever put to paper is profoundly valuable to international(ist) struggles against capitalism and it’s highest stage. Indeed, the emphasis on the relationship between American and Israeli racialised state violence highlights the struggles Davis has continually engaged since the late 1960s, that of a united front against imperialist oppression, white supremacists, patriarchal capitalist exploitation, and the carceral state. https://www.docdroid.net/rfDRFWv/freedom-is-a-constant-struggle-pdf#page=6
Postmodernism, Or, The Cultural Logic Of Late Capitalism by Frederic Jameson A frequent criticism of Marxism is the false claim that it is decreasingly relevant. Here, Jameson presents a compelling update of Marxist theory which addresses the hegemonic nature of mass media in the postmodern epoch (how befitting a tumblr post listing leftist literature). Despite being published in the early ‘90s, this analysis of late capitalism becomes all the more pertinent in the age of social media and ‘influencers’ etc., and illustrates just how immortal a science ours really is. https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2016/SOC757/um/61816962/Jameson_The_cultural_logic.pdf
The Ecology Of Freedom: The Emergence And Dissolution Of Hierarchy by Murray Bookchin I have not read this in depth, and take issue with some of Bookchin’s ideas, but this seems like a very good jumping off point to engage with ecosocialism or red-green theory. Regardless of any schism between Marxist and anarchist thought, the importance of uniting together to stem the unsustainable growth of industrialised capitalism cannot be denied. Climate change is unquestionably a threat faced by us all, but which will disproportionately impact the most disenfranchised on the planet. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-the-ecology-of-freedom.pdf
Why Marx Was Right by Terry Eagleton I’ve only read excerpts of this; I know Eagleton better for his extensive work on Marxist literary criticism, postmodernity, and postcolonial literature, so I’m including this work of his as a means of introducing and engaging directly with Marxism itself, rather than the synthesis of diverse fields of analysis. But Eagleton generally does a very good job of parsing often incredibly dense concepts in an accessible way, so I trust him to explain something so obvious and self-evident as why Marx was right. https://filosoficabiblioteca.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/EAGLETON-Terry-Why-Marx-Was-Right.pdf
By Any Means Necessary by Malcolm X Malcolm X is one of the pre-eminent voices of the revolutionary black power movement, and among the greatest contributors to black/American leftist thought. This is a collection of his speeches and writings, in which he eloquently and charismaticly conveys both his righteous outrage and optimism for the future. Malcolm X’s explicitly Marxist and decolonial rhetoric is often downplayed since his assassination, but even the title and slogan is borrowed from Frantz Fanon.
Feminism and gender theory
~
Sister Outsider: Essays And Speeches by Audre Lorde The primary thrust of this collection is the inclusion of ‘The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master’s House’, probably Lorde‘s most well known work, but all the contents are eminently worthwhile. Lorde addresses race, capitalist oppression, solidarity, sexuality and gender, in a rigourously rhetorical yet practical way that calls us to empower one another in the face of oppression. Lorde’s poetry is also great. http://images.xhbtr.com/v2/pdfs/1082/Sister_Outsider_Essays_and_Speeches_by_Audre_Lorde.pdf
Feminism Is For Everybody by bell hooks A seminal addition to Third Wave Feminist theory, emphasising the reality that the aim of feminism is to confront and dismantle patriarchal systems which oppress - you guessed it - everybody. This book approaches feminism through the lens of race and capitalism, feeding into the discourse on intersectionality which many of us now take as a central element of 21st Century feminism. https://excoradfeminisms.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bell_hooks-feminism_is_for_everybody.pdf
Gender Trouble: Feminism And The Subversion Of Identity by Judith Butler Butler and her work form probably the single most significant (especially white) contribution to Third Wave Feminism, as well as queer theory. This may be a somewhat dense, academic work, but the primary hurdle is in deconstructing our existing perceptions of gender and identity, which we are certainly better equipped to do today specifically thanks to Butler. Vitally important stuff for dismantling hegemonic patriarchy. https://selforganizedseminar.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/butler-gender_trouble.pdf
Trans Liberation: Beyond Pink Or Blue by Leslie Feinberg Feinberg is perhaps the foundational voice in trans theory, best known for Stone Butch Blues, but this text seems like a good point to view hir push into mainstream acceptance where ze previously aligned hirself and trans groups more with gay and lesbian subcultures. A central element here is the accessibility and deconstruction of hegemonic gender and expression, but what this really expresses is a call for solidarity and support among marginalised classes, in a fight for our mutual visibility and survival, in the greatest of Marxist feminist traditions.
The Haraway Reader by Donna Haraway Haraway is perhaps better known as a post-humanist than a Marxist feminist, but in all honesty, I am not sure these can be disentangled so easily. My highest recommendation is the essay ‘A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century‘, but it is in many ways concerned more with aesthetics and media criticism than anything practical, and Haraway’s engagement with technology has only become more significant, with the proliferation of smartphones and wifi, to understanding our bodies and ourselves as instruments of resistance. https://monoskop.org/images/5/56/Haraway_Donna_The_Haraway_Reader_2003.pdf
Postcolonialism
~
The Wretched Of The Earth by Frantz Fanon Perhaps my highest recommendation, this will give you better insight into late stage (postcolonial) capitalism than perhaps anything else. Fanon was a psychologist, and his analyses help us parse the internal workings of both the capitalist and racialised minds. I don’t see this work recommended nearly enough, largely because Fanon’s Black Skin, White Masks is a better source for race theory, but The Wretched Of The Earth is the best choice for understanding revolutionary, anti-capitalist, and decolonial ideas. http://abahlali.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Frantz-Fanon-The-Wretched-of-the-Earth-1965.pdf
Orientalism by Edward Said This is probably the best introduction to postcolonial theory, particularly because it focuses on colonial/imperialist abuses in media and art. Said’s later work Culture And Imperialism may actually be a better source for strictly leftist analysis, but this is the groundwork for understanding the field, and will help readers confront and interpret everything from Western military interventionism to racist motifs in Disney films. https://www.eaford.org/site/assets/files/1631/said_edward1977_orientalism.pdf
Decolonisation Is Not A Metaphor by Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang In direct response to Fanon’s call to decolonise (the mind), Tuck and Yang present a compelling assertion that the abstraction of decolonisation paves the way for settler claims of innocence rather than practical rapatriation of land and rights. The relatively short article centres and problematises ongoing complicity in the agenda of settler-colonial hegemony and the material conditions of indigenous groups in the postcolonial epoch. Important stuff for anti-imperialist work and solidarity. https://clas.osu.edu/sites/clas.osu.edu/files/Tuck%20and%20Yang%202012%20Decolonization%20is%20not%20a%20metaphor.pdf
The Coloniser And The Colonised by Albert Memmi Often read in tandem with Fanon, as both are concerned with trauma, violence, and dehumanisation. But further, Memmi addresses both the harm inflicted on the colonised body and the colonisers’ own culture and mind, while also exploring the impetus of practical resistance and dismantling imperialist control structures. This is also of great import to confronting detractors, offering the concrete precedent of Algerian decolonisation. https://cominsitu.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/albert-memmi-the-colonizer-and-the-colonized-1.pdf
Can The Subaltern Speak? by Gayatri Spivak This relatively short (though dense) essay will ideally help us to confront the real struggles of many of the most disenfranchised people on earth, removing us from questions of bourgeois wage-slavery and focusing on the right to education and freedom from sexual assault, not to mention the legacy of colonial genocide. http://abahlali.org/files/Can_the_subaltern_speak.pdf 
Wider cultural studies
~
No Logo by Naomi Klein I have some qualms with Klein, but she nevertheless makes important points regarding the systemic nature of neoliberal global capitalism and hegemony. No Logo addresses consumerism at a macro scale, emphasising the importance of what may be seen as internationalist solidarity and support and calling out corporate scapegoating on consumer markets. I understand that This Changes Everything is perhaps even better for addressing the unreasonable expectations of indefinite and unsustainable growth under capitalist systems, but I haven’t read it and therefore cannot recommend; regardless, this is a good starting point. https://archive.org/stream/fp_Naomi_Klein-No_Logo/Naomi_Klein-No_Logo_djvu.txt
The Black Atlantic: Modernity And Double Consciousness by Paul Gilroy This is an important source for understanding the development of diasporic (particularly black) identities in the wake of the Middle Passage between African and America, but more generally as well. This work can be related to parallel phenomena of racialised violence, genocide, and forced migration more widely, but it is especially useful for engaging with the legacy of slavery, the cultural development of blackness, and forms of everyday resistance. https://dl1.cuni.cz/pluginfile.php/756417/mod_resource/content/1/Gilroy%20Black%20Atlantic.pdf
Imagined Communities: Reflections On The Origin And Spread Of Nationalism by Benedict Anderson This text is important in understanding the nature of both high colonialism and fascism, perhaps now more than ever. Anderson examines the political manipulation and agenda of cultural production, that is the propagandised, artificial act of nation building. This analyses the development of nation states as the norm of political unity in historiographical terms, as symptomatic of old school European imperialism. Today we may see this reflected in Brexit or MAGA, but lebensraum and zionism are just as evident in the analysis. https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2016/SOC757/um/6181696/Benedict_Anderson_Imagined_Communities.pdf
Discipline And Punish: The Birth Of The Prison by Michel Foucault Honestly, I am not sure if this should be on this list; I would certainly not call it leftist. That said, it is a very important source to inform our perceptions of the nature of institutional power and abuse. It is also unquestionable that many of the pre-eminent left-leaning scholars of the past fifty years have been heavily influenced, willing or not, by Foucault and his post-structuralist ilk. A worthwhile read, especially for queer readers, but take with a liberal (zing!) helping of salt. https://monoskop.org/images/4/43/Foucault_Michel_Discipline_and_Punish_The_Birth_of_the_Prison_1977_1995.pdf
Trouble In Paradise: From The End Of History To The End Of Capitalism by Slavoj Žižek Probably just don’t read this, it amounts to self-torture. Okay but seriously, I wanted to include Žižek (perhaps against my better judgement), but he is probably best seen as a lesson in recognising theorists as fallible, requiring our criticism rather than being followed blindly. I like Žižek, but take him as a kind of clown provocateur who may lead us to explore interesting ideas. He makes good points, but he also... Doesn’t... Watch a couple youtube videos and decide if you can stomach him before diving in.
Additional highly recommended authors (with whom I am not familiar enough to give meaningful descriptions or specific recommended texts) (let me know if you find anything of significant value from among these, as I am likely unaware!):
Theodor Adorno (of the Frankfurt School, which also included Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, and Walter Benjamin, all of whom I’d likewise recommend but with whom I have only passing familiarity) was a sociologist and musicologist whose aesthetic analyses are incredibly rich and insightful, and heavily influential on 20th Century Marxist theory.
Sara Ahmed is a significant voice in Third Wave Feminist criticism, engaging with queer theory, postcoloniality, intersectionality, and identity politics, of particular interest to international praxis.
Mikhail Bakhtin was a critic and scholar whose theories on semiotics, language, and literature heavily guided the development of structuralist thought as well as later Marxist philosophy.
Mikhail Bakunin is perhaps the closest thing to anarchist orthodoxy. Consistently involved with revolutionary action, he is known as a staunch critic of Marxist rhetoric, and a seminal influence on anti-authoritarian movements.
Silvia Federici is a Marxist feminist who has contributed significant work regarding women’s unpaid labour and the capitalist subversion of the commons in historiographical contexts.
Mark Fisher was a leftist critic whose writing on music, film, and pop culture was intimately engaged with postmodernity, structuralist thought, and most importantly Marxist aesthetics.
Che Guevara was a major contributor to revolutionary efforts internationally, most notably and successfully in Cuba. His writing is robustly pragmatic as well as eloquent, and offers practical insight to leftist action.
Hồ Chí Minh was a revolutionary communist leader of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and a significant contributor to revolutionary communist theory and anti-imperialist practice.
C.L.R. James is a significant voice in 20th Century (especially black) Marxist theory, engaging with and criticising Trotskyist principles and the role of ethnic minorities in revolutionary and democratic political movements.
Joel Kovel was a researcher known as the founder of ecosocialism. His work spans a wide array of subjects, but generally tends to return to deconstructing capitalism in its highest stage.
György Lukács was a critic who contributed heavily to the Western Marxism of the Frankfurt School and engaged with aesthetics and traditions of Marx’s philosophical ideology in contrast with Soviet policy of the time.
Rosa Luxemburg was a revolutionary socialist organiser, publisher, and economist, directly engaged in practical leftist activity internationally for a significant part of the early 20th Century.
Mao Zedong was a revolutionary communist, founder and Chairman of the People’s Republic of China, and a prolific contributor to Marxism-Leninism(-Maoism), which he adapted to the material conditions outside the Western imperial core.
Huey P. Newton was the co-founder of the Black Panther Party and a vital force in the spread and accessibility of communist thought and practical internationalism, not to mention black revolutionary tactics.
Léopold Sédar Senghor was a poet-turned-politician who served as Senegal’s first president and established the basis for African socialism. Also central to postcolonial theory, and a leader of the Négritude movement.
***
I hope this list may be useful. (I would also be interested to see the recommendations of others!) Happy reading, comrades. We have nothing to lose but our chains.
1K notes · View notes