Left-NRx is a very neglected field in accelerationist-adjacent circles, because some modern leftists (mainly left-anarchists like the anarcho-communists, and the anarcho-syndicalists) are afraid to research things outside of leftism in fear of making them seem like fascists, and because to left-accelerationists, it’s a contradiction of ideals.
Dear, @correancollar , you offer an elegant solution... However, I'm not sure how we escape Dialectal Materialism... Not that we shouldn't think it, but, I wonder, do we fetishize this overcoming? As psychoanalysis teaches us we cannot ever full occupy the space of the Signifier, we're always trapped in the interregnum of the traumatic symptom that is the real (if we're talking like this our real is first-world Capitalist order)... The rhizomatic emergence of semi-feudal anarchic utopian society is as likely as any other potential ideological re-organization of labor-power, within localized and proximate participants, of course.--But TBH... I'm drawn to your entangling of (LR)-NXr = Nice equation. Great paper!... Ps. sorry for all the ML talking points... I'm just romantic like that!
far from being convinced by the idea of a left-wing Neo-Reaction i'm willing to entertain the thought but will point out certain thinkers or strand of thought that at least thread the same terrains and ideas as the people listed in the article above but are nowhere near NRX except as potential critics of it :
Murray Bookchin's scaled out, networked localism and focus on the multi-causal potentialities of the political process as part of (not only an authentic but any) everyday life and as the necessary precondition to any self-governed polity would be a good addition to a left project that seeks both to look at the way technology conditions and sometimes determines political processes and a project that hopes to have something to say about the absolute state of the climate crises we find ourselves in.
The work of information theory offers a good starting point for thinking about the true limits to action in the world, which are not uniformly "material" but rely on the capacity to process and treat information, those questions are related to political processes by many thinkers and scholars, Seeing Like A State's james c. scott being a famous one, but recently the people who most touch on those question wrt left-politics are found at the Center For A Stateless Society (https://c4ss.org/content/52963) and are not afraid to pit hayek's insights against his own lies to make him somewhat marxist(https://c4ss.org/content/54067) or to push the normative assumptions of transhumanism towards their logical anarchistic conclusions (https://c4ss.org/content/44993) and (https://c4ss.org/content/56320).
bookchin is too steeped in his ad hominemesque critiques of anarchist currents as lifestylist imo. he's constructing a method based on localism when localism should be constructing its own methods overtime.
i've been reading to read more of him tho, and this c4ss stuf seems interesting. thanx :3
Glad you hit the nail on the head wrt bookchin's blindspots, i think the pinnacle of his totalising/plannification mindset problem stems in his focus on assemblies as the drivers of change and i feel like they've been addressed well by people like Kadalie (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SavT4eaePGw) or kevin carson (https://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/community-platforms.pdf), that said what can be gleemed from bookchin is his approach to technology that is eminently cosmolocalist and mumfordian in its orientation
if you want we can discuss this on discord or twitter and stuf ^^ substack comment sections can be p limitng and i want to continue this discussion. :3 do you have twitter or discord?
i agree with the necessity to ruthlessly critique certain milieux/ingroups/etc of the "nihilist"(http://humaniterations.net/2016/05/10/nihilism-a-lie-in-service-to-the-existing/) variety who use the aesthetics of anarchism to make themselves palatable and seem somehow aligned with the reasearch projects of anarchism while peddling the most reactionary nonsense but i disagree with the idea that they're not currents in their own right given their intellectual heritage that can be traced back to previous projects and milieux, you can look at the way the russian nihilists (terrible name for a skeptics movement, polemics sinks another ship) influence the project of ruthless critique that would later give space for certain individualists' picking up the ideas of anti-moralism and other forms of weird non-anarchist pseudo anarchism (https://c4ss.org/content/56480)
I also disagree with the idea that it is somehow the fault of capitalism, it's more of a result of focalising on the production of community without having a definite
and solid project of ethical refinement, which allows for the rise of informal hierarchies and social capital accumulation, something bookchin is guilty of too because his polemical practices are part of a wider problem in how he engaged people and his tendency to burn bridges unconditionally with people
I don't think it's a matter of bookchin's kindness(tho his interpersonal behavior and his militant reflexes generally seem to stem from the same desire for certainty he could never stabilize ) but rather his focus on One Big Project as the solution to his context, which is a hangover from his marxist days, the old clausewitzian/leninist idea that what is needed is pressure on the strongest parts of the establishment's structures through coercion or seizure, he simply scaled down and reorganized certain notions of workerist organising around community scales but he still had the centralized assembly as his main tool/unit of change and a very definite idea of what should happen, even if he thought some leeway could be given at the local scale, he was very attached to his "meta-project"/federal scale project.
i also don't think i subscribe to the same definition of capitalism as you so it'd be hard to walk around and talk about it that said the nihilist politics you mention have a very american focus, in europe they're less prevalent in anarchist circles, even though greek anarcho-nihilists are a thing of their particular context and ex-soviet countries have a number of those anarchist-libertarian-skeptics-nihilists descendant tendencies too.
(who don't use nihilism in its true nihil sense but in its skepticism sense)
Dear, @correancollar , you offer an elegant solution... However, I'm not sure how we escape Dialectal Materialism... Not that we shouldn't think it, but, I wonder, do we fetishize this overcoming? As psychoanalysis teaches us we cannot ever full occupy the space of the Signifier, we're always trapped in the interregnum of the traumatic symptom that is the real (if we're talking like this our real is first-world Capitalist order)... The rhizomatic emergence of semi-feudal anarchic utopian society is as likely as any other potential ideological re-organization of labor-power, within localized and proximate participants, of course.--But TBH... I'm drawn to your entangling of (LR)-NXr = Nice equation. Great paper!... Ps. sorry for all the ML talking points... I'm just romantic like that!
far from being convinced by the idea of a left-wing Neo-Reaction i'm willing to entertain the thought but will point out certain thinkers or strand of thought that at least thread the same terrains and ideas as the people listed in the article above but are nowhere near NRX except as potential critics of it :
Murray Bookchin's scaled out, networked localism and focus on the multi-causal potentialities of the political process as part of (not only an authentic but any) everyday life and as the necessary precondition to any self-governed polity would be a good addition to a left project that seeks both to look at the way technology conditions and sometimes determines political processes and a project that hopes to have something to say about the absolute state of the climate crises we find ourselves in.
(as well as having been an actual influence on existing projects and processes https://communalistlibrary.carrd.co/)
The work of information theory offers a good starting point for thinking about the true limits to action in the world, which are not uniformly "material" but rely on the capacity to process and treat information, those questions are related to political processes by many thinkers and scholars, Seeing Like A State's james c. scott being a famous one, but recently the people who most touch on those question wrt left-politics are found at the Center For A Stateless Society (https://c4ss.org/content/52963) and are not afraid to pit hayek's insights against his own lies to make him somewhat marxist(https://c4ss.org/content/54067) or to push the normative assumptions of transhumanism towards their logical anarchistic conclusions (https://c4ss.org/content/44993) and (https://c4ss.org/content/56320).
bookchin is too steeped in his ad hominemesque critiques of anarchist currents as lifestylist imo. he's constructing a method based on localism when localism should be constructing its own methods overtime.
i've been reading to read more of him tho, and this c4ss stuf seems interesting. thanx :3
Glad you hit the nail on the head wrt bookchin's blindspots, i think the pinnacle of his totalising/plannification mindset problem stems in his focus on assemblies as the drivers of change and i feel like they've been addressed well by people like Kadalie (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SavT4eaePGw) or kevin carson (https://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/community-platforms.pdf), that said what can be gleemed from bookchin is his approach to technology that is eminently cosmolocalist and mumfordian in its orientation
if you want we can discuss this on discord or twitter and stuf ^^ substack comment sections can be p limitng and i want to continue this discussion. :3 do you have twitter or discord?
sure enough, do you have a server ?
https://discord.gg/D6sNEKXX yeah, i have a server! ^^
i agree with the necessity to ruthlessly critique certain milieux/ingroups/etc of the "nihilist"(http://humaniterations.net/2016/05/10/nihilism-a-lie-in-service-to-the-existing/) variety who use the aesthetics of anarchism to make themselves palatable and seem somehow aligned with the reasearch projects of anarchism while peddling the most reactionary nonsense but i disagree with the idea that they're not currents in their own right given their intellectual heritage that can be traced back to previous projects and milieux, you can look at the way the russian nihilists (terrible name for a skeptics movement, polemics sinks another ship) influence the project of ruthless critique that would later give space for certain individualists' picking up the ideas of anti-moralism and other forms of weird non-anarchist pseudo anarchism (https://c4ss.org/content/56480)
I also disagree with the idea that it is somehow the fault of capitalism, it's more of a result of focalising on the production of community without having a definite
and solid project of ethical refinement, which allows for the rise of informal hierarchies and social capital accumulation, something bookchin is guilty of too because his polemical practices are part of a wider problem in how he engaged people and his tendency to burn bridges unconditionally with people
I don't think it's a matter of bookchin's kindness(tho his interpersonal behavior and his militant reflexes generally seem to stem from the same desire for certainty he could never stabilize ) but rather his focus on One Big Project as the solution to his context, which is a hangover from his marxist days, the old clausewitzian/leninist idea that what is needed is pressure on the strongest parts of the establishment's structures through coercion or seizure, he simply scaled down and reorganized certain notions of workerist organising around community scales but he still had the centralized assembly as his main tool/unit of change and a very definite idea of what should happen, even if he thought some leeway could be given at the local scale, he was very attached to his "meta-project"/federal scale project.
i also don't think i subscribe to the same definition of capitalism as you so it'd be hard to walk around and talk about it that said the nihilist politics you mention have a very american focus, in europe they're less prevalent in anarchist circles, even though greek anarcho-nihilists are a thing of their particular context and ex-soviet countries have a number of those anarchist-libertarian-skeptics-nihilists descendant tendencies too.
(who don't use nihilism in its true nihil sense but in its skepticism sense)
on an information theory influenced take on capitalism, see : https://twitter.com/mutual_ayyde/status/1533000870245216256#m
i'm not attempting to be unique, i'm synthesizing what you deem ridiculous into leftism, because leftism needs what you call ridiculousness