/dead/ - dead

All anarchism is nihilistic in some sense.

&gt&gt109that's true of potatoes too

Post-left anarchy is a body of theory of contemporary anarchists, and nihilism is one of the groups of ideologies (along with insurrectionism, primitivism, and egoism, and probably some others) included in this. Nihilism specifically makes the argument that there is no reason to think that the old tactics will lead to Revolution, that a Revolution is ever going to happen again or be effective, or that we may even be able to achieve anarchy at all (for example, because the planet has been permanently fucked by capitalism). But nevertheless, even though inaction in this case could be just as valuable as action, what we do know is that this miserable world needs to be destroyed no matter what is going to come next.Like most of post-left anarchy, the nihilist position is very unsatisfying and even offensive to most other anti-capitalist ideologies.&gt&gt109How so?&gt&gt110What exactly is happening here? Is this from the show?

&gt&gt112There's a fine line between pessimism and defeatism. There is absolutely no guarantee of anything in politics. The fact that every political Event is overdetermined rules out any certainty. The anti-collectivist (anti-politics, imo) conclusions drawn by certain post-leftists are nothing new, and Marx already criticized Stirner for it.

&gt&gt114Nihilism has little to do with pessimism and nothing to do with defeatism - at least, not the active nihilism of political nihilism. Passive capitalist nihilism is a different story.Anyways, these platitudes about politics aren't compelling to me, and it seems like you are deliberately misreading my post. As I said, nihilism does not necessarily entail inaction or defeatism so much as it questions whether there is really anything wrong with inaction ("defeatism") - especially when you consider that capitalism is destroying itself well enough without our intervention. But it is my personal opinion that political nihilism is very closely aligned with insurrectionism on this issue; there is no reason to not attack the State and capitalism directly, in the here and now, especially if we have no reason to presuppose a goal other than the destruction of the current conditions. Our lives are meaningless and miserable, but at least we can live defiantly and maybe do some real damage to the current system and hasten its demise. It's also funny that you bring up the Event, considering that Badiou's concept of the Event is precisely something that radically changes our understanding of the world when it happens. If this is the case, then the way we understand things now may be entirely wrong, and will change when an Event happens - and certainly something like the death of capitalism and States would be an Event if ever there was one. The Event opens up the possibility of radical contingency and only strengthens the nihilist position - though Badiou obviously didn't see this.

&gt&gt114>anti-collectivist (anti-politics, imo) &gt&gt115Aren't we talking about the same political tradition that is against any programmes, platforms, collective lines – collective organization as such?Insurrectionism as strategy, conceived in this negative way, is hardly more than aestheticization of post-politics. It disbands structures for theatrics, seeks catharsis from carnival. It's an ideological mirror of the hegemonic presented as radicalism: panacea against the atomized individual? More individualism!>capitalism is destroying itself well enough without our interventionWithout a guarantee of what comes next, collective inaction will surely contribute to the best future possible! Spontaneity is on our side!

&gt&gt118Listen here you fucking autist, maybe you should actually do something other than shitpost your smug bullshit about insurrectionism if you've clearly never read anything at all about it. Insurrectionism and post-left anarchy in general is opposed to formal, permanent organizations - not organizations based on affinity, which can be spontaneous and small or can be large and long-lasting. Whatever the case may be, the whole point is that these groups argue for organization that doesn't just end up creating more hierarchies and actively dismiss individual members of the organization and de-legitimate anyone who is outside the organization.>Without a guarantee of what comes next, collective inaction will surely contribute to the best future possible! Spontaneity is on our side!And once again that isn't what I was saying, and in fact I made that point quite clear in the post you responded to, and once again you're posting smug bullshit and ignoring the rest of my post.

&gt&gt119>maybe you should actually do something other than shitpost your smug bullshit about insurrectionism if you've clearly never read anything at all about itI've actually read The Coming Insurrection, Debord, several anarcho-nihilist texts (I'm pretty certain I was the first to mention Monsieur Dupont on Leftypol), and I'm familiar with the most prominent scholar on insurrectionism/situationism in Eastern-Europe, G. M. Tamás, and I'm also familiar with Socialisme ou Barbarie group's main ideas and its later splinters, but from these mostly with Castoriadis and Lyotard.>opposed to formal, permanent organizationsYeah, but, you know, in theory at least, communists are against permanent organizations as well, since we want to abolish the proletariat as class. Your rant seems to indicate that you'd deny this as well.>organizations based on affinity, which can be spontaneous and small or can be large and long-lastingI look at at the organizational ideas (communes, affinity-groups) and practical aims (sabotage, terror) laid down by the Invisible Committee with sympathy, but the group's subsequent attempts and ultimate failure (and probably abandonment of the project altogether), not to mention the (sorry for my [i]sectarian[/i] [i]dogmatist[/i] leftypol term) anarchokiddies pointing at them and doing nothing more than carnivals, destruction of property at protests and clashes with the popo, was all predictable if one knew criticisms of individualism and Utopian-socialism.>organization that doesn't just end up [delegitimizing] anyone who is outside the organization.(So, hold on to your pooper bag, it's my time to accuse you of bad things.) It seems to me that you are not familiar with the dynamics of 20st century communism, and I'm thinking specifically about the history of the communist internationals. If you look at Lenin's proposals at the third ("Twenty-one Conditions") you'll see him doing two things: building adhesion and introducing a line of differentiation. You could interpret this as an attempt at delegitimization (of socdems, anarchists et al.) and sectarianism, but I think that the "Leninist truth" in these moments is the discarding of the fantasy of unprincipled unity, of "anything goes" politics, of the idea that politics proper doesn't require a line drawn in the sand – a fantasy I keep detecting from anarchists, when they valorize consensus, temporal affinity, and so on. If I really had to use your terms, I could say that there's no proper politics without legitimizing one side and delegitimizing the other.>my smug bullshit about spontaneityThis comes from me following the activities of groups like Crimethinc. and the reports from Submedia.tv. Spontaneity is a big thing in post-left/insurrecto circles, and it would be futile to deny it. If you don't have more permanent structures, lasting affinities, what fills in the gap is spontaneity, improvisation, and this would lead back to my criticism of aestheticization.

&gt&gt120Woah, TGM is known outside Hungary?

&gt&gt160Yep.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gNMHOpF9H8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRZAXT5Vkbc