Moments of Anarchy
a Situationist-Anarchist Primer.

Moments of Anarchy: a Situationist Anarchist Primer by Wade cartway.

The treachery of images & the “True world Narrative”.:

“Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth” -Nietzsche.

“We live in a world where there is more and more information and less and less meaning.” — Jean Baudrillard

The world is a world of signs, symbols, and binaries, and in a world based around the logic of referentiality, certain displays take on an ideological presence over others, the Ideology of the time holds certain symbolism, and displays as of course more so approved than others, even rewarded for their presentation, often it is the case of psycho-spatially certain signs are held up higher because their significance in size: ala billboards, jumbotron television screens then there is the signs symbols, slogans, jingles, and merchandise the Individual consumes and display which communicate to others a message about themselves, whether this structural message is accurate or not is one thing, the signified itself is another. Say a Rolex says something about its possessor, it is a sign of wealth and therefore prestige in a world of a hierarchy of symbols the Rolex can grant serious social capital.

Of course simply because one possesses a certain level of prestige does little to say anything about the caliber of the person, at most it means they were perhaps lucky with their money, but modern society places signification in these symbols and so those who possess them they maybe granted privileges lest the holy dollar amount be passed down to them, money being itself an object of signification in a currency based economy where the signification in terms of value eclipses the material signified.

One narrative and universal truth that binds the world together. Money may be a means of exchange of signs, but it is this exchange which is a transaction of symbols of power, not actually useful value, the transaction of the power of the dollar, — a currency which holds no true material value, its symbolic reverence does not reflect it’s material equivalent in either labor or materials but nevertheless at this point in history it’s signification eclipses any true value the dollar may have what is exchanged is a license to consume by institutions of power. Money within the United States has had no material basis since 1971 when the gold standard expired and so money remains as this power structure despite no actual exchange actually occurring. Money is everywhere and everything has a price therefore money is psychogeo-spatially influential in that it possesses omnipresent mass, not unlike a billboard or a giant television which possesses mass to draw attention and therefore significance.

These signs of significance point to other referential objects that promise upon possession some notion of empowerment or fulfillment of the will to power, drawing power from its symbolic significance in the symbolic economy. This all concerns much more the idea of what is being possessed rather than what is actually being possessed being radically different then the idea of the possession in terms of reality.

In a society of highly rationalized and symbolic concerns, all authentic possibly subversive thought is attempted to be consumed by slogans, Jingles, Logos, and merchandise to quell any possible rebellion against the system of objects. Of course, a major means of rebelling would be the creation of anticultural products to be released if only to subvert the collective image of the spectacle haunting global society.

I suggest that to revolt against the signified with authenticity, the mainstream must be injected with seditionary cultural products That place value in rebellious messaging and behavior as opposed to the pedestrian. Pieces of High culture need to be created to participate in cultural selection to up-root the popular culture of the democratic monarchy of Modernity.

The symbol of rebellion itself; the propaganda of the deed is itself a symbol of defiance against the arrangement of symbols and is arranged as a person and holds a sort of negative currency that can be respected but nevertheless chips away at the establishment. Because all signs are assigned by an arbitrary, unsolicited, or solicited authority, the radical has no need to be obligated to fall in line with the arrangement of symbols that any unsolicited power structure decides to create, the only thing that cannot be avoided thereby is base materialism.

Humanity only ever sees a very superficial understanding of itself and the world around us, as we can only view what is evident, and generally respond with what accommodations can be made, but perhaps it is these additions to the natural world that are what drives alienation within the world, everything is only ever spoken as an ideal, when people speak of anything they’re only ever speaking in terms of reference of words, on its own this isn’t entirely harmful, but when the signifier is confused for the signified, the needs and desires of the signified become neglected to the benefit of the strawman built by mass society to represent them. The spectacle becomes a means of maintaining that the individual is a servant to society, not that society serves the Individual.

The hyperreal as a manifestation of spectacle(discussed in detail later) is the world defined by copies without originals, events, happenings, and things that are only experienced through simulation. An example would be the “strawman” one presents through virtual means such as social media where one can paint a picture of oneself to others completely removed from who they are, all ugliness is covered up, eventually, particularly in the commodity-fetishist society we live in, the significance of the hyperreal eclipses material reality, not unlike the otherworldly promise of heaven proposed by religion.

The Religious Illusion & culture.:

“The spectacle is the material reconstruction of the religious illusion” — Debord.

“things in themselves” and “essences” are manifestations of a desire that there be a world beyond that of “mere appearance.” — Nietzsche.

First off I must say this first and foremost: 1. I am an Anti-theist not necessarily an atheist, and 2. I am an antinomian when it comes to theism. Post-industrial & post-Fordist consumer capitalism is the religious illusion transferred to the material as Debord said. In a world in an ultra-appearance, idealist secular and rationalized focused world, what the situationists called the “spectacle”.

Modern living is dedicated to the collection of “spectacles”, smaller symbolic gestures of imagery and collections of signs of prosperity social or otherwise which make up a semiotic anatomy of a greater body and lattice of a collection of objects that make up the identity of the individual projected to others, which is not necessarily reflective of authentic desire. Like religion; Global consumer capitalism offers up a “true world”, a “spectacular”, and a Hyperreal narrative of what the “good life” is and what that means, which is now tied up in passive consumption as opposed to religious dogma.

Public relations, as a sort of anti-situationism uses “situations” to psychologically affect the observer, the best means to control the minds of a civilization is the same as how a cult leader keeps their flock, — keeps them busy, keeps them stupid and control the environment of the cult members, the culture industry by way of public relations does just that.

I generally subscribe to Nietzsche’s genealogy of morality, tracing the roots of modern “isms” back to Platonism, noting Platonism’s massive influence on Judeo-Christianity, and after Plato: the Abrahamic religions. Plato, with his forms and the Abrahamic religions because of their tie to the platonic form of other-worldly demands.

God was invented I suspect for governance purposes, just as many abstractions are formed for political musings, it was a form of governance and instilling discipline in early Jews Christians, and Muslims. But sooner or later early theologians forgot

They invented God, God became reified, and the Plato-Abrahamic worldview became standard even for critics of religion difficult to escape(see how secular humanism attempts to retain Christian morality but secularized). Even now God is used as a form of Governance even to professed atheists, not just because of eternal hell fire, but also the omnipresence of “god” on earth. God is comparable in many ways with commodities.

like God, we often tend to forget that they(commodities) are mere mass-produced goods or ideas, enough to supply a great deal, and yet because of their status, they remain reified as otherworldly objects because it isn’t the object being sold, it’s the platonic form “floating” around the object which is purchased and holds social symbolism, it simply makes up a piece of the lattice of identity which was discussed previously.

Identity.:

“Because despite his race, this man is extremely valuable to me.” I glanced at my attorney, but his mind was somewhere else. I whacked the back of the driver’s seat with my fist. “This is important, goddamnit!” — Hunter s thompson.

Identitarianism is merely a function of the powers that be. Your identity as previously discussed is analyzed as a subconscious amalgamation of the sum of one’s presentation of both appearance and language, things such as identitarianism surrounding arbitrary traits such as Sexual preference, Race, Gender presentation, and dialectical gender relations are absurd when compared to issues such as class because for one class is defined by one’s material conditions, conditions which can be changed but remain a material matter. Gender presentation is a blockheaded function of power structures as even if one is transgender, they are not transcending or transgressing anything, and ironically just tend to cling to gender identity further because in their politics of transgenderism, there are only two Genders, and they can only truly present as one or the other, not some third as even androgyny would mean adopting characteristics of the gender they did not Initially present as all that is is crossing back and forth between characteristics considered masculine, or feminine, androgyny is just a mix of these. Base materialism points to disregarding the cultural & historical phenomenological baggage of “masculinity” and “femininity” and merely identifying with the set of genitals one possesses, as the cultural baggage can be accepted or rejected but base materialism cannot be ignored. Merely because a man likes, Pink, or other cultural products considered “feminine” doesn’t make them a lady that just makes you a man with a dress on, there is nothing in itself there is no “essence” to anything and therefore a Man can enjoy whatever they may please because they can without loosing their earthly masculinity as opposed to the Idealist “masculinity” — this idealist masculinity has nothing to do with their genitals and one can present however they choose but there are existential functions beyond our control which do not need to be affixed to any cultural phenomenon, today’s notions of masculinity and femininity, of course, are very different than previous epochs with older pagan notions of gender and sex not being as defined by the secularized Judeo-Christian cultural idealisms of today it instead was more so defined by the physicality of the specific gender. Men in say the Roman Empire were often soldiers largely because primal warfare is very much a testosterone, and masculine activity and can be most effectively fought by men’s physicality, this isn’t to suggest any policy about women in the Military, only that in primitive warfare with literal sticks and stones, or in the roman case the Gladius the masculine form is better equipped, when one is not assisted by technological advancements such as the firearm. One’s expectations largely reflect one’s physical capabilities, not some imposed notion of gender, while Judeo-Christian masculinity has many more attached notions that are defined beyond their capabilities and in many ways, the people of the past did not have the fixed attachment between cultural products and gender we do today that was largely defined by the ability to pattern clothes and other cultural products into separate gendered forms and exacerbated by mass production, It is, of course, a running joke in the present that the ancients wore “skirts” (really; tunics, robes, kilts or togas. ) As today it is traditionally understood men today wear pants or trousers, but at the time these forms of clothing were more common it was defined by the material ability and ease to manufacture gendered cultural products — defined by consumption- just as today in many ways consumption or preference in consumption is tied to what is available with relative ease and commonality.

Race as a form of Identitarianism is relatively simple to discard as at some point in history every race has been under submission or abused too and by another so there is no reason for hundreds of years after the fact when literally anyone alive during slavery times is dead now and today’s people’s material conditions are so far removed from slavery that one’s current material conditions really cannot entirely be based on slavery there, the social justice movement needs to continuously place minorities on a pedestal of victimhood does not recognize this and is a disservice to minorities when they are practically seen by the social justice humanists as so pathetic they are incapable of doing anything for themselves which is not the case. Capitalism in and of itself, while despised, is only racist when it is profitable to do so, otherwise, the capitalist is actually harmed by racism as a minority’s money is just as green as any, and discrimination would mean passing up on the opportunity to swindle — this isn’t to promote racism, I am simply referring to contemporary conditions as in the past profit and race were certainly tied together but this is true for all races, post- ironic “racial” humor, however, can be used as a weapon against capitalism by exposing its flaws, and calling attention to often ignored truths, as well of course to cause provocation as well as endearment.

Culture jamming, Direct action, and Autonomous zones.:

“The urge to destroy is also a creative urge!” — Bakunin.

“Nihilism is ... not only the belief that everything deserves to perish, but one actually puts one’s shoulder to the plow; one destroys” — Nietzsche.

Culture jamming is the use and abuse of popular mass symbolism to subvert its intended message with seditionary messaging. One example could be using/parodying the advertisement of a brand to subvert the intended messaging of buying their product with something critical of the company and or society. Culture jamming is a very effective way of using satire, narrative, and other means to subvert the messaging of an institution of power by mimicking its already-tested imagery.

I would argue one of the earliest works of culture jamming goes back to Nietzsche’s “thus spake Zarathustra” where the titular Zarathustra in contrast to his real-life equivalent “Zoroaster”, Zoroastrianism is one of the world’s oldest and earliest monotheistic religions “Zarathustra” (different spellings/pronunciations depending on cultures not intended by Nietzsche, but differentiated here (for the sake of brevity) serves as a sort of mouthpiece for Nietzsche to extend his philosophy across the work by taking the imagery of Zoraster and turning it on its head to prove a point. Zarathustra represents a complete antithesis to Zoraster; he loves man because of man’s imperfections, while the saint only loves God because of God’s supposed perfection. I would argue in many ways Nietzsche was a proto-situationist considering his critique of “true world” narratives in a world before the invention of mass media, however, the spectacle even before the founding of the situationist international and Debord’s naming “spectacle” of the same phenomena as Nietzsche criticized in his time in the form of the “true world” narratives — his time’s form of the spectacle, I would also argue that mass media is not the start of the spectacle, but actually an amplifier of spectacle, or “true world” narratives in the form of the reification of commodities.

Leisure, and expenditure.:

“Certainly you want to ease the drudgery itself by all having to drudge equally hard, but only for this reason, that all may gain leisure to an equal extent. But what are they supposed to do with their leisure? What does your “society” do so that they’ll spend this leisurely humanly?” — Stirner.

“Under the present conditions, everything conspires to obscure the basic movement that tends to restore wealth to its function, to gift-giving, to squandering without reciprocation.” — Bataille.

“The upper classes are by custom exempt or excluded from industrial occupations, and are reserved for certain occupations to which a degree of honor attaches.” -Veblen.

The system of objects is a system of efficiency and rationalization, as things are constructed at present consumers, and workers serve the economy, the economy serves profit beyond all else, surplus wealth, this surplus wealth is then recycled back into the economy with every ounce of value gobbled up, with little to no expenditure from what can be profited from, if expenditure cannot be profited from, it would rather be wasted in debauchery, but nevertheless, we create far more than necessary and yet we still serve the economy wand this expenditure would rather go to rot, as opposed to going towards expanding leisure; leisure being productive, but unprofitable recreational trends such as in the humanities and personal studies an example would be fishing, studying “homebrew” software etc….. The amount of labor we must expend towards how much “living” time one receives resulting from wage labor is far more than necessary, with consumerism and the cycle of working, to buy, living to work is based on the falsehood of prosperity and empowerment resulting from consumption as a sign of prosperity, or social affluence and empowerment.

A Gold encrusted toilet is made up of a person’s leisure time, mandated by labor to survive, increased automation can either free or enslave the mandated laborer, once again I must say that the surplus consumption of the higher classes is the leisure time which could be dedicated towards advancing culture in a higher direction, is instead dedicated to funding a decadent lifestyle of those who control the narratives of society. Unfortunately, wealth as a signifier is divided in a radically concentrated way where one individual can have access to billions of dollars, which could fund the lifestyles of many, while many must live very financially conservatively. Only a Bourgeois pedestrian few are allotted the level of empowerment resulting from the collective force of wealth from the chain of production, those who hold the most significance fiscally of course hold the most power. Regardless if God is real, it doesn’t matter, Anarchists must give the big man something to look at.

The Culture Industry, Spectacle, and conspicuous consumption.:

“The only thing that can be expressed in the mode of the spectacle is the emptiness of everyday life.” — Vaneigem.

“Only he who has spirit ought to have possessions: otherwise possessions are a public danger.” — Nietzsche

“We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” — Edward Bernays- Nephew to Sigmund Freud and public relations Pioneer.

The culture Industry within the economy not only creates trends but maintains trends by pandering to the democratic aspects of the global consumer market economy, more challenging avant-garde messaging does not get the same platform that is afforded to blockbuster mainstream humanities such as film, music, art etc…. The culture industry thrives off its already established messaging but nevertheless can introduce new narratives as it pleases. The culture industry first came about in the 1900s with the new modern understandings of behavioral sciences, across the board such as Freud, the industry of connecting identity with consumption began to rapidly spring up. Before this Identity and consumption connection was much looser. Edward Bernays, a not commonly known nephew to Sigmund Freud, made breakthroughs in the sciences of public relations, “crystallizing public opinion” and in a sense arranging Individuals into categorical Identities, Bernays himself influenced the Feminist movement by marketing cigarettes as torches of freedom, and shaping America’s breakfast forever. Before the innovations of the 1900 such commandments were primarily reserved for clergy, Kings, and so on with a divine right, but in a secular world experts & technocrats tend to make up the ruling class. Stats, chemicals, computer representations, and simulations overrule lived experience, life is observed by mediation between real life and the represented, signified. Living exclusively through mediation allows for a controlled experience, or controlled society when ruled by Individuals, and experts even with their own agendas, as science, mathematics, and the rational cannot account for matters beyond arrangement.

According to theorists such as Mark Fisher, we are in the wake of lost futures, it is often within our culture, we have a strong nostalgia for the past at present, while in the past we instead looked to the future optimistically — the American dream, the east’s worker’s paradise, etc…Today we look longingly back at our perceived halcyon days (times and places which never existed), and their optimism, Globally with both the west & east look back to the hey-days of Americana and sovietism with the cold war being very much played out at this point. The current incarnation of the West vs East is merely a rebrand of past frictions with it being today more about overt control, as opposed to some Ideological clash between the soviet model and Laissez-faire capitalism.

Ironically many soviet icons became capitalist novelties(Che Guevara t-shirts for example sold in shopping malls and on websites such as Amazon). Regardless, the culture industry is totally willing to capitalize on the nostalgia of the present, the trend of the times is nostalgia, but what then will be the trends of the future or lack thereof?; nostalgia for nostalgia? I suggest we can seize the direction of history towards something that best resonates with us unburdened by the past we have no obligation to.

One thing that is important to note is culture is manufactured under modernity it generally does not erupt spontaneously, the culture industry a term invented by the Frankfurt school, serves as a means to keep people just resonated with themselves enough to not revolt, but also not too empowered as to actually to stop the plausibility of revolt. Culture has come to follow algorithms and formulas to both find and create a consumer base for their product. Why make an original piece of cinema for example if there is already a franchise with a formula which nearly guarantees a return and profit on investment If you can just re-release a film repeatedly?! The profit motive of post-industrial consumer/Fordist living ceases culture from thriving in new directions as the passerby pedestrian guarantees profit, efficiency, and over-rationalization, the only thing that matters is efficiency, efficiency to preserve a civilization in decline. When the spectacle is pervasive as it is, public relations firms and other cultural industry bodies flood everyday Suburban and urban life with popular imagery to the point one cannot differentiate the thing from the thing in itself, where commodities take on a reification beyond their material usefulness or practicality but instead socially takes on other-worldly qualities of status.

Anarchism & (unconditional) Accelerationism.:

Anarchism; The belief that unsolicited hierarchy and abstract authority are not only undesirable but are actually harmful and should be done away with be it the state, capitalism, or any “ism” of hierarchy which includes the undesired traits mentioned previously. Anarchism as it is known was first developed by Pierre Joseph Proudhon and since then Anarchism has had its highs and lows but has generally been tainted by the time which it emerged from and has yet to shake, notions such as egalitarianism, human reason, and rationalization being contemporary to of course Marxism and previous movements which popularized during Proudhon, Bakunin and later critiqued by Nietzsche & Stirner’s time That a lack of new vernacular was developed alongside anarchism of the 1800’s further making itself into its own and distancing itself from “egalitarianism’ meaning equality as such a think is impossible, undesirable and vague. I regard notions such as reason, common sense, Egalitarianism, and rationality can only truly be achieved when people are leveled. Marx and Bakunin, of course, were against the notion of absolute equality as in making the individual equal in every way, however “equality” when taken literally is something which would repel rebellion not promote it (Marx and Bakunin), referring to equality of material basis(language tainted by their forefathers) that all can benefit from the collective force of the entirety of production regardless of race, religion or creed “equally”, but again equally while they may have the same access, they are by no means “equal” and are actually much more Individualistic with society when it comes to literal equality. Egalitarian ideologies(many contemporary ill-informed followers of Bakunin and Marx) don’t even begin to approach the notion of Base materialism or the historical context of Bakunin’s and Marx’s language mirroring the language but not a function of previous idealogues (materialism with an absolute lack of reification)

By refuting the notion of equality because despite consumption being equally available the natural and chaotic outcomes of biology, anatomy, and genetics never permit a full leveling until humanity physically modifies the body like something from “Harrison Bergeron” by Vonnegut. I say Anarchists dispose of their egalitarianism and adopt a new language without necessarily renouncing Anarchism, but come to a new vernacular of the same Ideas. Proudhon, Bakunin, and other Anarchists really were unable to break with liberalism, Leftism, and the enlightenment due to where philosophy was heading, towards Western philosophy at the time, but now it is heading in a different direction entirely so much so we need to disregard egalitarianism or “equality”, and I propose instead Egoism and “Individuality” as inspired by Novatrore.

Unconditional accelerationism champions the notion of accelerating the very forces that drive capitalism’s contradictions and limitations. Rather than clinging to outdated reformist strategies, we propose a bold leap forward. Let us embrace the relentless march of automation, the boundless expansion of commodification, and the dynamic evolution of financialization. By accelerating these processes without hesitation, we propel modernity towards its entropic collapse. In the face of crises, unconditional accelerationism sees not despair but opportunity. Economic downturns, social upheavals, and environmental catastrophes are not obstacles but catalysts for transformation to be agitated.

My Anarchism is an Anarchism critical of the additions to the world such as the state, and society responsible for its members, instead, I argue Anarchy is the natural state of things(as evident within many observations of pre-modern societies from Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Stirner to Nietzsche, Bataille, and Maus and is a mode of Individuation that can only be reached through the destruction of the establishment structural institutions and replacement with Anarchist Federalism (as elaborated on by Bakunin, and Proudhon), with each vocalist and autonomous commune being free to arrange itself as it pleases, irresponsible for its members.

Anarchy despite what the mainstream portrays it as is not bedlam, or mayhem, Anarchy can best described as a form of Voluntary participation in decentralized federalism of Localist, autonomous, self-governing, and sovereign communes, containing sovereign Individuals — answering to no unsolicited authority, with decision making being made by example, as opposed to leadership or necessarily “democracy” in the mainstream sense of the word such as a formal form of ballot and elections, — at least this is my vision of Anarchy and I do not desire to speak for Anarchists who may disagree with this description, which is very reminiscent of what is described in Tacticus’s “Germania”;

“They choose their kings by birth, their generals for merit. These kings do not have unlimited or arbitrary power, and the generals do more by example than by authority. If they are energetic, if they are conspicuous, if they fight in the front, they lead because they are admired.

But to reprimand, to imprison, even to flog, is permitted to the priests alone, and that not as a punishment, or at the general’s bidding, but, as it were, by the mandate of the god whom they believe to inspire the warrior.

They also carry with them into battle certain figures and images taken from their sacred groves. And what most stimulates their courage is that their squadrons or battalions, instead of being formed by chance or by a fortuitous gathering, are composed of families and clans.

Close by them, too, are those dearest to them, so that they hear the shrieks of women, the cries of infants. They are to every man the most sacred witnesses of his bravery-they are his most generous applauders. The soldier brings his wounds to mother and wife, who shrink not from counting or even demanding them and who administer food and encouragement to the combatants”.

Chapter VII Government, & the Influence of Women:

“About minor matters the chiefs deliberate, about the more important the whole tribe. Yet even when the final decision rests with the people, the affair is always thoroughly discussed by the chiefs. They assemble, except in the case of a sudden emergency, on certain fixed days, either at new or at full moon; for this, they consider the most auspicious season for the transaction of business.

Instead of reckoning by days as we do, they reckon by nights, and in this manner fix both their ordinary and their legal appointments. The night they regard as bringing on the day.

Chapter XI Councils:

Their freedom has this disadvantage, that they do not meet simultaneously or as they are bidden, but two or three days are wasted in the delays of assembling. When the multitude thinks proper, they sit down armed. Silence is proclaimed by the priests, who have on these occasions the right to keep order. Then the king or the chief, according to age, birth, distinction in war, or eloquence, is heard, more because he has influence to persuade than because he has power to command.

If his sentiments displease them, they reject them with murmurs; if they are satisfied, they brandish their spears. The most complimentary form of assent is to express approbation with their spears.” — Germania by Tacitus, UNRV Translation.

Then again we have slightly more contemporary examples as has been shown in Makhnovia of Ukraine, An anarchist Federation built up during the Russian Revolution which primarily was made up of anarchist communists that lasted for three years before being put down after a betrayal by the Marxist-Leninists, Makhno the spokesperson of the free territory for which the territory is named and who is the primary master-mind behind the whole experiment said of Anarchy: “Anarchist’s outward form is a free, non-governed society, which offers freedom, equality and solidarity for its members. Its foundations are to be found in man’s sense of mutual responsibility, which has remained unchanged in all places and times. This sense of responsibility is capable of securing freedom and social justice for all men by its own unaided efforts. It is also the foundation of true communism.”, and while I argue Anarchy has advanced beyond his egalitarian vernacular, his vision nevertheless gives an example of the possibilities of Anarchy. There are other examples of course such as Revolutionary Catalonia of course which I argue is a poor example due to the heavy-handed syndicalism espoused, and the eventual bureaucracy which caused its downfall.

Accelerationism is a philosophical movement that first emerged from the works of thinkers such as Nick Land (right-wing accelerationism), Mark Fisher(left-wing accelerationism), and my personal favorite form “unconditional accelerationism” outlined in “Unconditional accelerationist primer” by “xenogenic”, and “Unconditional Acceleration and the Question of Praxis: Some Preliminary Thoughts” by Edmund Berger which posits we cannot or should not make any prescriptive attempts at controlling the acceleration of societal conflicts and instead allow it to take its course to encounter new “futures”, at a point where there is seemingly no future promised by old narratives and that the only praxis is nothing but agitation and therefore “acceleration” of conflict resulting in new futures regardless of whatever this makes lead us. I suggest no defined praxis other than a general ‘agitation” as It honestly would be reactionary or even conservative in some senses to propose any positive doctrine or praxis to follow. The Idea behind accelerationism, at least from my personal point of view, is to further the contradictions and conflicts in society for its institutions of power to shift into entropy and breakdown, to cause Modernity, the state, capitalism, etc…. To lose control, by becoming ungovernable. The political ( I consider myself to be a-political) believe that somehow the conflicts of society can be reformed by supposed literal reform by the state or so-called “revolution”, Bourgeois or proletariat, and yet no such inevitable revolution or great shift has come. Unions are capitalist Bureaucracies at this point, the ballot has long been known to be a waste of revolutionary potential, and the Platformist approach, in general, has led us no closer to Anarchy, so what is to be done? — Burn it all down, scare the shit out of the jailers of modernity. Any positive vision of the future or prescriptive praxis is never referring to matters of everyday conditions, there will not be an inevitable proletarian revolution nor a Bourgeois crystal castle of technology to satisfy your every whim, we are at the end of history unless we seize it for ourselves.

The Proto-postmodernism of Anarchy.:

“Who is right, the idealists or the materialists? The question, once stated in this way, hesitation becomes impossible. Undoubtedly the idealists are wrong and the materialists right. Yes, facts are before ideas; yes, the ideal, as Proudhon said, is but a flower, whose root lies in the material conditions of existence.” — Mikhail Bakunin.

Encyclopedia Britannica defines Postmodernism as “a late 20^th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.” I will be using this definition as it is the most simple to explain to the layman reader. The roots of post-structuralism, of course, are burrowed deep into materialism, but not “empiricism” or “positivism’. Anarchism similarly to Post-structuralism also has deep roots in Materialism, previously materialism of course contrasting idealism with materialism. Idealism particularly Platonic idealism from which many idealism(s) descend and from where “true world” narratives, and spectacles originate, Anarchism as a general materialist worldview, therefore, presses forward dismantling idealism in favor of lived experience, however many anarchism(s) begin, and end with abstraction, and this is where these ideologies fail to account for everyday life, life beyond representation and instead they cling to and participate in reformism such as vehicles like unions, political platforms etc…. they think can elicit change as opposed to making change in the immediate context — not some far off heaven which may or may not ever come, the usual suspects being; Unions, the ballot, and politicians. Unions become bureaucratic, and capitulate to capitalists, as Emma Goldman once said “If voting worked they would make it illegal”.

Two figures I have explored to an exhaustive degree while compiling research for this text are 1 Nietzsche and 2 Bakunin. Both Philosophers were critical of the power structures and suppression by the state, as well as a hindrance to individual greatness, and both were anti-theistic philosophers which most would consider being in direct conflict, however, what I would argue is that it is only up until Anarchism as a positive vision is possible, small Revolutionary “aristocracies” of excellence may agitate people to pursue the path of the free spirit and dismantle power structures in the present, spreading the propaganda of the deed by civil resistance and pushing the world into a world for free spirits where Bakunin’s Anarchism can be spread around the globe and not just apply to a small minority in the present. The contextual disparities between Nietzsche and Bakunin offer not obstacles to synthesis, but rather fertile ground for exploration. By contextualizing their differences within the broader landscapes of revolution and philosophy, we unveil complementary perspectives that enrich our understanding of liberation. Kropotkin by extension of Bakunin also offers a perspective worth exploring. It is necessary to collectivize material wealth to “Communalize material wealth. To individualize spiritual wealth.” Furthermore, Nietzsche and Bakunin make similar critiques of religion being the catalyst for oppression by acknowledging that “A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth”, and such a boss was created for social control, psychological comfort, as well as to elevate the mediocre to a level of excellence. Stirner of course has been compared to Nietzsche quite a bit, but Bakunin not nearly as often. Contemporary Leftism fails because like reactionary ideology it begins and ends with abstraction, with slight hints of materialism, compared to the reactionary right. Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Stirner have yet to have truly worthy successors as many leftist morals have become reified extensions of Christian dogma, — a refusal of life.