Several issues.

1. You say that anticapitalism has become embedded in capitalism, but you refuse to examine what exactly anticapitalist capitalism is. The anticapitalism disseminated within capitalism invariably takes the opposite approach to the traditional socialist - or true anticapitalist - angle in media: society is first portrayed as evil and greedy, but then we learn it is possible to get along. The socialist (true anticapitalist) view is the reverse: things seem fine on the surface, but underneath are layers of exploitation, imperialism, etc. To simply deliver a blanket statement that all anticapitalism is incorrigibly feeding the system is in part nonsense and in whole pessimistic without neccesity.

2. Mark Fisher wrote on k-punk: "...difference is not suppressed by the established order, it is its banal currency. Fragmentation, deconstruction, cut-up are the very stuff of which mediocracy is made."

You even seem to accept this in part when you describe how anticapitalism becomes embedded in capitalism. However, you immediately contradict yourself so you can bring in moldbug. "Patchwork" is precisely the fragmented reality capitalism thrives on. Your biggest mistake is in thinking that the current order is large, centralized, and monolithic; your second biggest mistake is in believing that diversity of living, difference, etc. are anticapitalist - they are merely the "banal currency" of the established order.

3. You have a preoccupation with creating neologisms that refer to nothing. "Left of Suspicion" is frighteningly uninteresting, useless, and not unique - the same is true for "Left-NRx." It largely seems like an excuse to flex how you read right-wing material (how scary!) even while it adds nothing to your ideas or to political economy in general.

Expand full comment