“There are not two sexes, there are n sexes; there are as many sexes as there are assemblages. And since each of us enters into several assemblages, each of us has n sexes. When children discover that they are reduced to one sex, male or female, they discover their powerlessness: they lose the machinic sense and are left only with the signification of a tool. And then a child really does fall into depression. They have been damaged; their countless sexes have been stolen!”

— Gilles Deleuze,
The Interpretation of Utterances

Desiring-machines or the nonhuman sex: not one or even two sexes, but n sexes. Schizoanalysis is the variable analysis of the n sexes in a subject, beyond the anthropomorphic representation that society imposes on this subject, and with which it represents its own sexuality. The schizoanalytic slogan of the desiring-revolution will be first of all: to each its own sexes.

Deleuze & Guattari, Anti-Oedipus

“Old Russian nurses full of such lore will tell you never to put a child to bed without unbuttoning the collar of its shirt. A warm spot at the bottom of the neck should be left bare, where the guardian angel may nestle. Otherwise the devil will worry the child even in its sleep.

These artless conceptions are passing away. But though the old words disappear, the essential idea remains the same.

Well brought up folks no longer believe in the devil, but as their ideas are no more rational than those of our nurses, they do but disguise devil and angel under a pedantic wordiness honored with the name of philosophy. They do not say ‘devil’ nowadays, but ‘the flesh,’ or ‘the passions.’ The ‘angel’ is replaced by the words ‘conscience’ or ‘soul,’ by ‘reflection of the thought of a divine creator’ or ‘the Great Architect,’ as the Free-Masons say. But man’s action is still represented as the result of a struggle between two hostile elements. And a man is always considered virtuous just in the degree to which one of these two elements — the soul or conscience — is victorious over the other — the flesh or passions.”

— Peter Kropotkin, Anarchist Morality (II)

“The most disheartening tendency common among readers is to tear out one sentence from a work, as a criterion of the writer’s ideas or personality. Friedrich Nietzsche, for instance, is decried as a hater of the weak because he believed in the Übermensch. It does not occur to the shallow interpreters of that giant mind that this vision of the Übermensch also called for a state of society which will not give birth to a race of weaklings and slaves.

It is the same narrow attitude which sees in Max Stirner naught but the apostle of the theory ‘each for himself, the devil take the hind one.’ That Stirner’s individualism contains the greatest social possibilities is utterly ignored. Yet, it is nevertheless true that if society is ever to become free, it will be so through liberated individuals, whose free efforts make society.”

— Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays (Preface)

Nothing would help our so-called MRAs/"Meninists" more than a better understanding of patriarchy, a good dose of feminism... assuming that they actually care about the problems faced by men, which however appears to be a minority among them

Usually the worst feminist is better than the best MRA

Importance of Nietzsche's philosophical innovations

How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching, that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not merely their quick-wittedness, I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through their tenacity in defending their views, that the subject seemed important to them. Indeed, one should not be surprised at this.

— Albert Einstein, ‘Ernst Mach,’ Physikalische Zeitschrift (Vol 17) (1916; No. 7, p. 101)

Albert Einstein was, right from a young age, profoundly influenced by philosophy: especially that of Spinoza, Arthur Schopenhauer, Ernst Mach, David Hume; but also that of Immanuel Kant, Plato, Aristotle etc. (And although it doesn't seem to be a very significant influence on him, he was also more or less familiar with Nietzsche's philosophy. Not to mention many other influences.)

It's doubtful he would have come up with his theories the way he did without these philosophical influences.

His thinking was also in general philosophical; his view of science is not the narrow one that has become dominant among today's popular scientists, or, should we say, science popularizers...

Regarding the importance of epistemology, a field of philosophy, he wrote:

The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is—insofar as it is thinkable at all—primitive and muddled.

Apart from epistemology, his philosophical interests included ethics, determinism and free will, pantheism, causality, etc.

Regarding ancient Greek philosophers, he said:

The more I read the Greeks, the more I realize that nothing like them has ever appeared in the world since.… How can an educated person stay away from the Greeks? I have always been far more interested in them than in science.

He was also deeply political in a radical sense: he was a determined socialist, anti-militarist, anti-nationalist, internationalist. Political activism formed an important aspect of his life. He often used his image and influence to stand up for the oppressed.


Although, in my opinion, not as profoundly as Einstein, many other influential scientists of that era were also interested in philosophy; and some were also socialists like Einstein.

No one should be in the military!

“But to me, who am not of a warlike nature, and who have no warlike sense, war-songs would have been a mask which would have fitted my face very badly.

I have never affected anything in my poetry. I have never uttered anything which I have not experienced, and which has not urged me to production. I have only composed love-songs when I have loved. How could I write songs of hatred without hating! And, between ourselves, I did not hate the French, although I thanked God that we were free from them. How could I, to whom culture and barbarism are alone of importance, hate a nation which is among the most cultivated of the earth, and to which I owe so great a part of my own cultivation?

Altogether, national hatred is something peculiar. You will always find it strongest and most violent where there is the lowest degree of culture. But there is a degree where it vanishes altogether, and where one stands to a certain extent above nations, and feels the weal or woe of a neighbouring people, as if it had happened to one's own. This degree of culture was conformable to my nature, and I had become strengthened in it long before I had reached my sixtieth year.”

— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe,
Conversations with Eckermann (March 14, 1830)

“Here is a man who snatches its last mouthful of bread from a child. Every one agrees in saying that he is a horrible egoist, that he is guided solely by self-love.

But now here is another man, whom every one agrees to recognize as virtuous. He shares his last bit of bread with the hungry, and strips off his coat to clothe the naked. And the moralists, sticking to their religious jargon, hasten to say that this man carries the love of his neighbor to the point of self-abnegation, that he obeys a wholly different passion from that of the egoist. And yet with a little reflection we soon discover that however great the difference between the two actions in their result for humanity, the motive has still been the same. It is the quest of pleasure.”

— Peter Kropotkin
(picture unrelated, XD)

Truth/falsehood vs consequences etc

“As for the famous ‘struggle for existence,’ so far it seems to me to be asserted rather than proved. It occurs, but as an exception; the total appearance of life is not the extremity or starvation, but rather riches, profusion, even absurd squandering — and where there is struggle, it is a struggle for power. One should not mistake Malthus for nature.”

— Friedrich Nietzsche
(picture unrelated)

„Ich weiß, dass mir nichts angehört
Als der Gedanke, der ungestört
Aus meiner Seele will fließen,
Und jeder günstige Augenblick,
Den mich ein liebendes Geschick
Von Grund aus lässt genießen.“
 
“I feel that I'm possess'd of nought,
Saving the free unfetterd thought
Which from my bosom seeks to flow,
And each propitious passing hour
That suffers me in all its power
A loving fate with truth to know.”

— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe,
Eigentum (My Only Property)

Max Stirner and the philosophy of might: some clarification
(The following arguably applies to Nietzsche as well, at least partially)

Stirner's statements such as "might makes right" or "might goes before right" are sometimes, unfortunately, mistaken for social Darwinism or similar ideologies.

But bear in mind that social darwinism was not a thing until more than 2 decades after the publication of Stirner's book. (Darwin's publications on natural selection came more than a decade after Stirner published his book).

Stirner was not suggesting that we should accept the might of a ruler etc.
What he was saying is that, "rights" are an illusion and, where they have any material relevance, are almost always backed by might/power.

Stirner's concept of might/power is very broad. It could include physical, brute force. It could also include legal power, backed by armed forces etc. BUT even the effect of a feeling of affection could be a form of might: if you have affection for your (or any) child, and are compelled to take care of them etc, that's also a form of might exercised by the child over you.

(And as can be seen from the tagged quote above, it could include, for example, "persuasion", "petition", "categorical demand", and "even hypocrisy, cheating, etc"... therefore Stirner's idea of "might" is not the narrow one of social Darwinists and other reactionaries. It is unwise to ahistorically project later ideologies on Stirner, or to make such uninformed claims, without proper, contextual understanding of Stirner's ideas.)

Moreover, solidarity and association of the oppressed also counts as an important form of might for the benefit of our liberation…. To quote Stirner:

‘Why, everything must go topsy-turvy if every one could do what he would!’ Well, who says that every one can do everything? What are you there for, pray, you who do not need to put up with every­thing? Defend yourself, and no one will do anything to you! He who would break your will has to do with you, and is your enemy. Deal with him as such. If there stand behind you for your protection some millions more, then you are an imposing power and will have an easy victory.

So the basic idea is this: rights are only a concept, a spook even. They don't have a material existence. Might/power/force, which is material, is the thing of importance. Without it your rights are a fantasy and nothing more.

When an oppressed people fight for their rights, they are actually asserting their might. Usually, in such a case, rights are what are conceded by the oppressors in response to the power exercised by the oppressed, if it sufficiently threatens them that is.

A government could guarantee you all sorts of rights and it might mean nothing in practice.

So Stirner was asking us to let go of our illusions about rights, duties etc. So that we wouldn't be satisfied with a merely promised freedom and instead fight for actual, material freedom and well-being.

Ultimately, Stirner was an anarchist and his philosophy was meant for the oppressed and not for the oppressors... do as you will with it, vagabonds!

On a different note...

Sometimes Stirner's use of the concept of "egoism" is linked to Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic concept of 'ego'...
...but actually, Freud was only born 50 days before Stirner's death (1856)...

Some also seem to think Stirner was influenced by Nietzsche...
... however, Nietzsche was born just 1-2 weeks before Stirner published his book (October, 1844)

On the other hand, the hypothesis that Nietzsche was influenced by Stirner has of course been there since the time Nietzsche began gaining some popularity... and it's at least plausible, but there's scant direct evidence to confirm it. If there really was an influence, it might not be so strong, perhaps coming from secondary sources on Stirner rather than a direct influence.

Voting as reformism

“Infiltrate the stores, give away the toys!”
— Bread Santa

On the night before Christmas, we’ll all be about
While the people are sleeping, we’ll realise our clout
We'll expropriate goods from the stores, 'cos that’s fair
And distribute them widely, to those who need care.

— Peter Kropotkin, probably really

https://youtu.be/nMvOTmkA0sE

My further rants on the post-anarchist caricature of "classical anarchism":

Premise: there is a trend among so-called "post-anarchists" of creating a caricature of (what they refer to as "classical"–) anarchist movement and making wild, simplistic claims about it. One such notable, pretentious claim is that this "classical" anarchism and anarchists were deeply affected by (Nietzschean) ressentiment; that they had a Manichean view of the world: to see everything in a black-and-white sense of "good and evil", or narrow dualism in general; and especially that they viewed humanity as being pure, inherently good but corrupted by the evil State (or "power") etc; that they had very essentialist view of things.

(In the following rants, when I say "anarchists" or "anarchism" without qualifications it's mostly a reference to anarchists or anarchism of the so-called classical period, which roughly corresponds to pre-WWII.)
(My attempt below is to show, on the one hand, that the dominant postanarchist representation of anarchism falls short of an in-depth understanding of the anarchist theories & movement; and, on the other, that such postanarchists are (effectively) rejecting important, useful aspects of anarchism in an attempt to sell postanarchism.)


Let's start with a quote:

A table can be overturned and a window can be smashed. However, those who believe that the state is also a thing or a fetish that can be overturned or smashed are sophists and believers in the Word. The state is a social relationship; a certain way of people relating to one another. It can be destroyed by creating new social relationships; i.e., by people relating to one another differently.

The absolute monarch said: I am the state. We, who we have imprisoned ourselves in the absolute state, must realise the truth: we are the state! And we will be the state as long as we are nothing different; as long as we have not yet created the institutions necessary for a true community and a true society of human beings.

— Gustav Landauer, Weak Statesmen, Weaker People! (1910)

Part of the reason I share this quote is to note that such a perspective, expressed in such terms, was also present in that (classical) period!

However, as useful as postmodernist analyses are, that of Foucault & the others, I think seeing the State as merely a social relationship, as merely a particular distribution of power among people, would again be a very limiting view and has its own shortcomings, perhaps even worse than what's attributed by postanarchists to the so-called "classical anarchism"…

It's not that I (or, in my opinion, any serious anarchists) disagree with that quote of Landauer. But I don't think that perspective is enough; it might even be a rather self-evident idea to most anarchists.

The idea of seeing the State as an external imposition is, it might seem, very naive. Yet there's an important truth in this. Not exactly that way… let me explain.

States didn't simply develop among people because they decided to act in certain ways. Often they were imposed by ruling classes through violence, by stealing the commons and transforming customs into laws favoring the ruling minorities; by replacing/modifying existing customs/institutions into statist laws/institutions.

Many people don't realize just how recent the development of states was in most parts of the world. (It is also true of patriarchy and gender; even in the West, the modern gender ideology is quite recent and more recent than people think.)

With some exceptions, until the last few centuries, state power, where it existed, was very limited. And then it began to become more powerful and only more recently did it become as powerful as it is. The same is true of capitalist values in general, including the work ethic etc. They were often thrust onto the populace under conditions of extreme misery created by the emerging bourgeoisie.

And whether in the case of the state or capital, there was often much resistance, which too has been gradually erased from history and popular memory, for the most part.

Kropotkin's theories and historical context:

Peter Kropotkin's analysis of the state and its historical formation, in The State: Its Historic Role, is quite instructive.

But in this book one sees again that the post-anarchist version of anarchists having a naive view of the world—such as seeing humans as inherently good but corrupted by government etc—only lives in the imagination of "postanarchists" like Newman and May.

Contrary to what one might expect from Kropotkin based on postanarchist misrepresentation, for example that he would believe the state was imposed on the innocent populace thereby corrupting their inherently good human nature, he instead acknowledged that—while the States were gradually imposed in the aforementioned ways—the people's desires also played a role.

For example, Kropotkin writes:

Princely and royal authority is already germinating in these families, and the more I study the institutions of that period the more do I see that customary law did much more to create that authority than did the power of the sword. Man allowed himself to be enslaved much more by his desire to ‘punish’ the aggressor according to the law than by direct military conquest.

Kropotkin, The State: Its Historic Role

What is often presented as Kropotkin's naive view of human nature—that he believed in the inherent, natural good of humans—is false, is misunderstood and misrepresented. The intellectual background of the time period is also important.

It was soon after Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection, and it's the time when Malthusian, social Darwinist ideologies—in the form of scientific theories—became predominant. They were the dominant interpretations of evolutionary theory, and were being propagated by the influence of Thomas Huxley etc.

It was Kropotkin who provided a major critique of their theories and offered an alternative theory, based on his observations of societies of wild animals as well as of humans. That while competition does exist, that a struggle for existence can be seen, it is however mutual aid, cooperation etc that were predominant and made life—the continued existence of life—possible in the case of most living beings.
This understanding, these ideas, played a central role not only in his scientific work, but also in his anarchist philosophy. And it is important and is now just as relevant as ever. It's not some stupid simplification or dogmatism.

Kropotkin didn't believe in a singular, rigid human nature or inherent goodness of human beings. But he did point out that sociability—mutual aid and cooperative behavior—is a tendency that's favored by evolution and that it's an important factor in the survival and flourishing of living beings; that it's an important factor behind the development of compassion etc.
To think that this amounted to naive naturalistic, dualistic or even humanistic (as in, essentialist) worldview seems to me to be quite ignorant.

As David Graeber wrote in the intro to a recent edition of Mutual Aid:

[Kropotkin] changed the face of science in ways that continue to affect us today. Pyotr Kropotkin’s scholarship was careful and colorful, insightful and revolutionary. It has also aged unusually well. Kropotkin’s rejection of both capitalism and bureaucratic socialism, his predictions of where the latter might lead, have been vindicated time and time again. Looking back at most of the arguments that raged in his day, there’s really no question about who was actually right.