Dionysian Anarchism – Telegram
Dionysian Anarchism
434 subscribers
344 photos
10 videos
7 files
150 links
Egoist, communist anarchism.
Philosophical, (anti-)political quotes, memes, my original writings etc.

@AntiworkQuotes
Download Telegram
2. It is a gross exaggeration to say that Nietzsche's philosophy was inspired from Manusmriti. Manusmriti's influence on Nietzsche was not much, definitely not central... his remarks on it are largely seen only in his last few works, and even there it was not at all central to his work.

As mentioned earlier, Nietzsche was actually critical of Manusmriti and Brahmanism, and even when he spoke positively of it, it was only rhetoric to attack Christianity in that particular context; and, moreover, the edition of Manusmriti he had read was a very unreliable one, so it seemed better to him than it actually was.

So that's an important aspect to be noted. The translation of Manusmriti that he relied on was very unreliable; it was by a chauvinist who sought to present Brahmanism as something great, something in which all sort of knowledge could be found, etc... so there was a lot of whitewashing and misrepresentation. That edition of Manusmriti made it seem much better than it actually was (e.g., about treatment of women etc). For example, Nietzsche criticized Christianity by comparing the misogyny in it to the treatment of women in the edition of Manusmriti he had, but its presentation on this subject was very inaccurate... so if he instead read a more authentic translation, he likely would have been much more critical of Manusmriti, to say the least.

Also, just as Nietzsche's primary aim in Antichrist was to attack Christianity, and so used various means and rhetorics to that end, including "praising" Manusmriti vis-à-vis the Bible... so Ambedkar's aim in these texts was (quite rightly) to attack Hinduism and therefore used various means to that end, including invoking Nietzsche's philosophy and using the then-prevalent interpretation of Nietzsche's philosophy as Nazi philosophy.
And Ambedkar was justified in doing that; after all, these texts were written sometime during the 1940's-50's and a more critical analysis and understanding of Nietzsche was not mainstream then.

But, to reiterate, a critical analysis would show that there's no similarity between Brahmanism and Nietzsche's philosophy; thay, if anything, they're mutually incompatible — antagonistic even!

The following discussion adds further to this, refuting especially the reactionary, imperialist interpretations of Nietzsche; and, further, providing some context for Nietzsche's engagement with the Manusmriti... along with some relevant scholarly references: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/#:~:text=handful%20of%20passages,views%20(A%2056)
🔥1
3. As for the link between Nietzsche's philosophy and Nazism, it must be abundantly clear from this post earlier that there's very little in common between Nietzsche and Nazism (or fascism in general), that he vehemently HATED the (proto-)Nazis of his time: the anti-Semites and (German) nationalists, including his own sister and brother-in-law. He was strongly opposed to nationalism (most of all, German nationalism) as well as to antisemitism. As he wrote in BGE (§251):
... it would perhaps be useful and fair to banish the anti-Semitic bawlers out of the country.


It's of course not feasible to claim him for liberalism either. Nietzsche's philosophy, like Stirner's, was especially critical of liberalism.

There are two main political interpretations of Nietzsche, apart from the apolitical one (which, in my opinion, is meaningless)...:
one is anarchism, another is aristocratism.
(Often the anti-politics interpretation is conflated with the apolitical interpretation. But as I pointed out here, it is in fact more compatible with anarchism.)

The aristocratic interpretation, however, can be reinterpreted in anarchist terms as favoring a libertarian aristocracy, or aristocracy of the spirit, as opposed to an imperialist aristocracy (see this)

Nietzsche was not a social theorist but a poet, a rebel and innovator. His aristocracy was neither of birth nor of purse; it was of the spirit. In that respect Nietzsche was an anarchist, and all true anarchists were aristocrats

Emma Goldman, Living My Life

It must be kept in mind that, although Nietzsche praised aristocratic values and denounced plebeian values, he was no aristocrat by birth, nor did he possess any political power or economic privilege – he often had to ask for monetary help from his friends. Likewise, he spoke highly of health and strength (not necessarily just physical strength), and hated weakness, but he himself suffered from serious health problems throughout his life.

All this should at the very least give some weight to the anarchist interpretation that his philosophy was championing certain (aristocratic etc) values, but not engaging in bigotry nor advocating an imperialistic program. After considering all of this, the anarchist interpretation of Nietzsche is the most meaningful and powerful, and the other interpretations are not so viable.

Let me mention in relation to this an incident from Emma Goldman's biography (Living My Life). It was actually a discussion about none other than Nietzsche; and, surprised by Goldman's enthusiasm over Nietzsche, (the art critic) James Huneker remarked to her:
“I did not know you were interested in anything outside of propaganda.”
Goldman's reply:
That is because you don’t know anything about anarchism, else you would understand that it embraces every phase of life and effort and that it undermines the old, outlived values.


Thus, when I say "anarchist interpretation" of Nietzsche, I don't mean just the political aspects, but also other aspects such as cultural, artistic, life-affirming values.

According to the anarchist interpretation, the Übermensch is an ideal for humans, an ideal that transcends both the master morality and the slave morality — a type ’human being’ who is neither a master nor a slave; a free spirit — a libertarian aristocrat, an anarchist.

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.

Emma Goldman,
Anarchism and Other Essays (Preface)


*** references/abbreviations —
TotI : Twilight of the Idols
GoM : On the Genealogy of Morality
WtP : Will to Power
BGE : Beyond Good and Evil
👍1🔥1
Modest is even the thief in presence of sleep: he always stealeth softly through the night. Immodest, however, is the night-watchman; immodestly he carrieth his horn.


Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (chapter 2)
BACKWORLDSMEN.

Once on a time, Zarathustra also cast his fancy beyond man, like all backworldsmen. The work of a suffering and tortured God, did the world then seem to me.

The dream—and diction—of a God, did the world then seem to me; coloured vapours before the eyes of a divinely dissatisfied one.

Good and evil, and joy and woe, and I and thou—coloured vapours did they seem to me before creative eyes. The creator wished to look away from himself,—thereupon he created the world.

Intoxicating joy is it for the sufferer to look away from his suffering and forget himself. Intoxicating joy and self-forgetting, did the world once seem to me.

This world, the eternally imperfect, an eternal contradiction’s image and imperfect image—an intoxicating joy to its imperfect creator:—thus did the world once seem to me.

Thus, once on a time, did I also cast my fancy beyond man, like all backworldsmen. Beyond man, forsooth?

Ah, ye brethren, that God whom I created was human work and human madness, like all the Gods!

A man was he, and only a poor fragment of a man and ego. Out of mine own ashes and glow it came unto me, that phantom. And verily, it came not unto me from the beyond!

What happened, my brethren? I surpassed myself, the suffering one; I carried mine own ashes to the mountain; a brighter flame I contrived for myself. And lo! Thereupon the phantom withdrew from me!

To me the convalescent would it now be suffering and torment to believe in such phantoms: suffering would it now be to me, and humiliation. Thus speak I to backworldsmen.

Suffering was it, and impotence—that created all backworlds; and the short madness of happiness, which only the greatest sufferer experienceth.

Weariness, which seeketh to get to the ultimate with one leap, with a death-leap; a poor ignorant weariness, unwilling even to will any longer: that created all Gods and backworlds.

Believe me, my brethren! It was the body which despaired of the body—it groped with the fingers of the infatuated spirit at the ultimate walls.

Believe me, my brethren! It was the body which despaired of the earth—it heard the bowels of existence speaking unto it.

And then it sought to get through the ultimate walls with its head—and not with its head only—into “the other world.”

But that “other world” is well concealed from man, that dehumanised, inhuman world, which is a celestial naught; and the bowels of existence do not speak unto man, except as man.

Verily, it is difficult to prove all being, and hard to make it speak. Tell me, ye brethren, is not the strangest of all things best proved?

Yea, this ego, with its contradiction and perplexity, speaketh most uprightly of its being—this creating, willing, evaluing ego, which is the measure and value of things.

And this most upright existence, the ego—it speaketh of the body, and still implieth the body, even when it museth and raveth and fluttereth with broken wings.

Always more uprightly learneth it to speak, the ego; and the more it learneth, the more doth it find noscripts and honours for the body and the earth.

A new pride taught me mine ego, and that teach I unto men: no longer to thrust one’s head into the sand of celestial things, but to carry it freely, a terrestrial head, which giveth meaning to the earth!

A new will teach I unto men: to choose that path which man hath followed blindly, and to approve of it—and no longer to slink aside from it, like the sick and perishing!

The sick and perishing—it was they who despised the body and the earth, and invented the heavenly world, and the redeeming blood-drops; but even those sweet and sad poisons they borrowed from the body and the earth!

From their misery they sought escape, and the stars were too remote for them. Then they sighed: “O that there were heavenly paths by which to steal into another existence and into happiness!” Then they contrived for themselves their by-paths and bloody draughts!
Beyond the sphere of their body and this earth they now fancied themselves transported, these ungrateful ones. But to what did they owe the convulsion and rapture of their transport? To their body and this earth.

Gentle is Zarathustra to the sickly. Verily, he is not indignant at their modes of consolation and ingratitude. May they become convalescents and overcomers, and create higher bodies for themselves!

Neither is Zarathustra indignant at a convalescent who looketh tenderly on his delusions, and at midnight stealeth round the grave of his God; but sickness and a sick frame remain even in his tears.

Many sickly ones have there always been among those who muse, and languish for God; violently they hate the discerning ones, and the latest of virtues, which is uprightness.

Backward they always gaze toward dark ages: then, indeed, were delusion and faith something different. Raving of the reason was likeness to God, and doubt was sin.

Too well do I know those godlike ones: they insist on being believed in, and that doubt is sin. Too well, also, do I know what they themselves most believe in.

Verily, not in backworlds and redeeming blood-drops: but in the body do they also believe most; and their own body is for them the thing-in-itself.

But it is a sickly thing to them, and gladly would they get out of their skin. Therefore hearken they to the preachers of death, and themselves preach backworlds.

Hearken rather, my brethren, to the voice of the healthy body; it is a more upright and pure voice.

More uprightly and purely speaketh the healthy body, perfect and square-built; and it speaketh of the meaning of the earth.—

Thus spake Zarathustra.


Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (chapter 3)
THE DESPISERS OF THE BODY.

To the despisers of the body will I speak my word. I wish them neither to learn afresh, nor teach anew, but only to bid farewell to their own bodies,—and thus be dumb.

“Body am I, and soul”—so saith the child. And why should one not speak like children?

But the awakened one, the knowing one, saith: “Body am I entirely, and nothing more; and soul is only the name of something in the body.”

The body is a big sagacity, a plurality with one sense, a war and a peace, a flock and a shepherd.

An instrument of thy body is also thy little sagacity, my brother, which thou callest “spirit”—a little instrument and plaything of thy big sagacity.

“Ego,” sayest thou, and art proud of that word. But the greater thing—in which thou art unwilling to believe—is thy body with its big sagacity; it saith not “ego,” but doeth it.

What the sense feeleth, what the spirit discerneth, hath never its end in itself. But sense and spirit would fain persuade thee that they are the end of all things: so vain are they.

Instruments and playthings are sense and spirit: behind them there is still the Self. The Self seeketh with the eyes of the senses, it hearkeneth also with the ears of the spirit.

Ever hearkeneth the Self, and seeketh; it compareth, mastereth, conquereth, and destroyeth. It ruleth, and is also the ego’s ruler.

Behind thy thoughts and feelings, my brother, there is a mighty lord, an unknown sage—it is called Self; it dwelleth in thy body, it is thy body.

There is more sagacity in thy body than in thy best wisdom. And who then knoweth why thy body requireth just thy best wisdom?

Thy Self laugheth at thine ego, and its proud prancings. “What are these prancings and flights of thought unto me?” it saith to itself. “A by-way to my purpose. I am the leading-string of the ego, and the prompter of its notions.”

The Self saith unto the ego: “Feel pain!” And thereupon it suffereth, and thinketh how it may put an end thereto—and for that very purpose it is meant to think.

The Self saith unto the ego: “Feel pleasure!” Thereupon it rejoiceth, and thinketh how it may ofttimes rejoice—and for that very purpose it is meant to think.

To the despisers of the body will I speak a word. That they despise is caused by their esteem. What is it that created esteeming and despising and worth and will?

The creating Self created for itself esteeming and despising, it created for itself joy and woe. The creating body created for itself spirit, as a hand to its will.

Even in your folly and despising ye each serve your Self, ye despisers of the body. I tell you, your very Self wanteth to die, and turneth away from life.

No longer can your Self do that which it desireth most:—create beyond itself. That is what it desireth most; that is all its fervour.

But it is now too late to do so:—so your Self wisheth to succumb, ye despisers of the body.

To succumb—so wisheth your Self; and therefore have ye become despisers of the body. For ye can no longer create beyond yourselves.

And therefore are ye now angry with life and with the earth. And unconscious envy is in the sidelong look of your contempt.

I go not your way, ye despisers of the body! Ye are no bridges for me to the Superman!—

Thus spake Zarathustra.


Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (chapter 4)
🔥1
READING AND WRITING.

Of all that is written, I love only what a person hath written with his blood. Write with blood, and thou wilt find that blood is spirit.

It is no easy task to understand unfamiliar blood; I hate the reading idlers.

He who knoweth the reader, doeth nothing more for the reader. Another century of readers—and spirit itself will stink.

Every one being allowed to learn to read, ruineth in the long run not only writing but also thinking.

Once spirit was God, then it became man, and now it even becometh populace.

He that writeth in blood and proverbs doth not want to be read, but learnt by heart.

In the mountains the shortest way is from peak to peak, but for that route thou must have long legs. Proverbs should be peaks, and those spoken to should be big and tall.

The atmosphere rare and pure, danger near and the spirit full of a joyful wickedness: thus are things well matched.

I want to have goblins about me, for I am courageous. The courage which scareth away ghosts, createth for itself goblins—it wanteth to laugh.

I no longer feel in common with you; the very cloud which I see beneath me, the blackness and heaviness at which I laugh—that is your thunder-cloud.

Ye look aloft when ye long for exaltation; and I look downward because I am exalted.

Who among you can at the same time laugh and be exalted?

He who climbeth on the highest mountains, laugheth at all tragic plays and tragic realities.

Courageous, unconcerned, scornful, coercive—so wisdom wisheth us; she is a woman, and ever loveth only a warrior.

Ye tell me, “Life is hard to bear.” But for what purpose should ye have your pride in the morning and your resignation in the evening?

Life is hard to bear: but do not affect to be so delicate! We are all of us fine sumpter asses and assesses [Esel und Eselinnen].

What have we in common with the rose-bud, which trembleth because a drop of dew hath formed upon it?

It is true we love life; not because we are wont to live, but because we are wont to love.

There is always some madness in love. But there is always, also, some reason in madness.

And to me also, who appreciate life, the butterflies, and soap-bubbles, and whatever is like them amongst us, seem most to enjoy happiness.

To see these light, foolish, pretty, lively little sprites flit about—that moveth Zarathustra to tears and songs.

I should only believe in a God that would know how to dance.

And when I saw my devil, I found him serious, thorough, profound, solemn: he was the spirit of gravity—through him all things fall.

Not by wrath, but by laughter, do we slay. Come, let us slay the spirit of gravity!

I learned to walk; since then have I let myself run. I learned to fly; since then I do not need pushing in order to move from a spot.

Now am I light, now do I fly; now do I see myself under myself. Now there danceth a God in me.—

Thus spake Zarathustra.


Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (chapter 7)
1👍1
"Describe the self-help, motivation industry (and a good amount of psychiatry etc) in two words..."

"Professional gaslighting"
THE TREE ON THE HILL.

Zarathustra’s eye had perceived that a certain youth avoided him. And as he walked alone one evening over the hills surrounding the town called “The Pied Cow,” behold, there found he the youth sitting leaning against a tree, and gazing with wearied look into the valley. Zarathustra thereupon laid hold of the tree beside which the youth sat, and spake thus:

“If I wished to shake this tree with my hands, I should not be able to do so.

But the wind, which we see not, troubleth and bendeth it as it listeth. We are sorest bent and troubled by invisible hands.”

Thereupon the youth arose disconcerted, and said: “I hear Zarathustra, and just now was I thinking of him!” Zarathustra answered:

“Why art thou frightened on that account?—But it is the same with man as with the tree.

The more he seeketh to rise into the height and light, the more vigorously do his roots struggle earthward, downward, into the dark and deep—into the evil.”

“Yea, into the evil!” cried the youth. “How is it possible that thou hast discovered my soul?”

Zarathustra smiled, and said: “Many a soul one will never discover, unless one first invent it.”

“Yea, into the evil!” cried the youth once more.

“Thou saidst the truth, Zarathustra. I trust myself no longer since I sought to rise into the height, and nobody trusteth me any longer; how doth that happen?

I change too quickly: my to-day refuteth my yesterday. I often overleap the steps when I clamber; for so doing, none of the steps pardons me.

When aloft, I find myself always alone. No one speaketh unto me; the frost of solitude maketh me tremble. What do I seek on the height?

My contempt and my longing increase together; the higher I clamber, the more do I despise him who clambereth. What doth he seek on the height?

How ashamed I am of my clambering and stumbling! How I mock at my violent panting! How I hate him who flieth! How tired I am on the height!”

Here the youth was silent. And Zarathustra contemplated the tree beside which they stood, and spake thus:

“This tree standeth lonely here on the hills; it hath grown up high above man and beast.

And if it wanted to speak, it would have none who could understand it: so high hath it grown.

Now it waiteth and waiteth,—for what doth it wait? It dwelleth too close to the seat of the clouds; it waiteth perhaps for the first lightning?”

When Zarathustra had said this, the youth called out with violent gestures: “Yea, Zarathustra, thou speakest the truth. My destruction I longed for, when I desired to be on the height, and thou art the lightning for which I waited! Lo! what have I been since thou hast appeared amongst us? It is mine envy of thee that hath destroyed me!”—Thus spake the youth, and wept bitterly. Zarathustra, however, put his arm about him, and led the youth away with him.
And when they had walked a while together, Zarathustra began to speak thus:

It rendeth my heart. Better than thy words express it, thine eyes tell me all thy danger.

As yet thou art not free; thou still seekest freedom. Too unslept hath thy seeking made thee, and too wakeful.

On the open height wouldst thou be; for the stars thirsteth thy soul. But thy bad impulses also thirst for freedom.

Thy wild dogs want liberty; they bark for joy in their cellar when thy spirit endeavoureth to open all prison doors.

Still art thou a prisoner—it seemeth to me—who deviseth liberty for himself: ah! sharp becometh the soul of such prisoners, but also deceitful and wicked.

To purify himself, is still necessary for the freedman of the spirit. Much of the prison and the mould still remaineth in him: pure hath his eye still to become.

Yea, I know thy danger. But by my love and hope I conjure thee: cast not thy love and hope away!

Noble thou feelest thyself still, and noble others also feel thee still, though they bear thee a grudge and cast evil looks. Know this, that to everybody a noble one standeth in the way.

Also to the good, a noble one standeth in the way: and even when they call him a good man, they want thereby to put him aside.

The new, would the noble man create, and a new virtue. The old, wanteth the good man, and that the old should be conserved.

But it is not the danger of the noble man to turn a good man, but lest he should become a blusterer, a scoffer, or a destroyer.

Ah! I have known noble ones who lost their highest hope. And then they disparaged all high hopes.

Then lived they shamelessly in temporary pleasures, and beyond the day had hardly an aim.

“Spirit is also voluptuousness,”—said they. Then broke the wings of their spirit; and now it creepeth about, and defileth where it gnaweth.

Once they thought of becoming heroes; but sensualists are they now. A trouble and a terror is the hero to them.

But by my love and hope I conjure thee: cast not away the hero in thy soul! Maintain holy thy highest hope!—

Thus spake Zarathustra.


Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (chapter 8)
👍1
THE PREACHERS OF DEATH.

There are preachers of death: and the earth is full of those to whom desistance from life must be preached.

Full is the earth of the superfluous; marred is life by the many-too-many. May they be decoyed out of this life by the “life eternal”!

“The yellow ones”: so are called the preachers of death, or “the black ones.” But I will show them unto you in other colours besides.

There are the terrible ones who carry about in themselves the beast of prey, and have no choice except lusts or self-laceration. And even their lusts are self-laceration.

They have not yet become men, those terrible ones: may they preach desistance from life, and pass away themselves!

There are the spiritually consumptive ones: hardly are they born when they begin to die, and long for doctrines of lassitude and renunciation.

They would fain be dead, and we should approve of their wish! Let us beware of awakening those dead ones, and of damaging those living coffins!

They meet an invalid, or an old man, or a corpse—and immediately they say: “Life is refuted!”

But they only are refuted, and their eye, which seeth only one aspect of existence.

Shrouded in thick melancholy, and eager for the little casualties that bring death: thus do they wait, and clench their teeth.

Or else, they grasp at sweetmeats, and mock at their childishness thereby: they cling to their straw of life, and mock at their still clinging to it.

Their wisdom speaketh thus: “A fool, he who remaineth alive; but so far are we fools! And that is the foolishest thing in life!”

“Life is only suffering”: so say others, and lie not. Then see to it that ye cease! See to it that the life ceaseth which is only suffering!

And let this be the teaching of your virtue: “Thou shalt slay thyself! Thou shalt steal away from thyself!”—

“Lust is sin,”—so say some who preach death—“let us go apart and beget no children!”

“Giving birth is troublesome,”—say others—“why still give birth? One beareth only the unfortunate!” And they also are preachers of death.

“Pity is necessary,”—so saith a third party. “Take what I have! Take what I am! So much less doth life bind me!”

Were they consistently pitiful, then would they make their neighbours sick of life. To be wicked—that would be their true goodness.

But they want to be rid of life; what care they if they bind others still faster with their chains and gifts!—

And ye also, to whom life is rough labour and disquiet, are ye not very tired of life? Are ye not very ripe for the sermon of death?

All ye to whom rough labour is dear, and the rapid, new, and strange—ye put up with yourselves badly; your diligence is flight, and the will to self-forgetfulness.

If ye believed more in life, then would ye devote yourselves less to the momentary. But for waiting, ye have not enough of capacity in you—nor even for idling!

Everywhere resoundeth the voices of those who preach death; and the earth is full of those to whom death hath to be preached.

Or “life eternal”; it is all the same to me—if only they pass away quickly!—

Thus spake Zarathustra.


Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (chapter 9)
WAR AND WARRIORS.

By our best enemies we do not want to be spared, nor by those either whom we love from the very heart. So let me tell you the truth!

My brethren in war! I love you from the very heart. I am, and was ever, your counterpart. And I am also your best enemy. So let me tell you the truth!

I know the hatred and envy of your hearts. Ye are not great enough not to know of hatred and envy. Then be great enough not to be ashamed of them!

And if ye cannot be saints of knowledge, then, I pray you, be at least its warriors. They are the companions and forerunners of such saintship.

I see many soldiers; could I but see many warriors! “Uniform” one calleth what they wear; may it not be uniform what they therewith hide!

Ye shall be those whose eyes ever seek for an enemy—for your enemy. And with some of you there is hatred at first sight.

Your enemy shall ye seek; your war shall ye wage, and for the sake of your thoughts! And if your thoughts succumb, your uprightness shall still shout triumph thereby!

Ye shall love peace as a means to new wars—and the short peace more than the long.

You I advise not to work, but to fight. You I advise not to peace, but to victory. Let your work be a fight, let your peace be a victory!

One can only be silent and sit peacefully when one hath arrow and bow; otherwise one prateth and quarrelleth. Let your peace be a victory!

Ye say it is the good cause which halloweth even war? I say unto you: it is the good war which halloweth every cause.

War and courage have done more great things than charity. Not your sympathy, but your bravery hath hitherto saved the victims.

“What is good?” ye ask. To be brave is good. Let the little girls say: “To be good is what is pretty, and at the same time touching.”

They call you heartless: but your heart is true, and I love the bashfulness of your good-will. Ye are ashamed of your flow, and others are ashamed of their ebb.

Ye are ugly? Well then, my brethren, take the sublime about you, the mantle of the ugly!

And when your soul becometh great, then doth it become haughty, and in your sublimity there is wickedness. I know you.

In wickedness the haughty man and the weakling meet. But they misunderstand one another. I know you.


Friedrich Nietzsche,
Thus Spake Zarathustra (chapter 10)
Forwarded from ACAB includes Tankies
All these "revolutionaries" who talk about "the people" are usually just going to use the people as a sacrificial lamb, they just see the latter as a material to be used and abused for the former's glory and power.

Those who talk about "the people" as a separate, external category can't be revolutionaries in a liberatory sense.
(These same "revolutionaries" also fantasize that their dictator will "embody" the will of the people; — naturally follows from the aforementioned alienating logic.)

Only those who are part of the people, not only at some point in the past, but always... and not only in some abstract sense, but in a real, material way... can be a part of the revolution and be revolutionaries.
Those who are removed from the people and see themselves above them are only counterrevolutionaries.

These (counter-)revolutionaries always talk about "the people", even about sacrificing for the latter's sake... but they'll ultimately sacrifice the people themselves for their own greed when they get the opportunity for it (and they seek such opportunities; they just conceal it with all sorts of "revolutionary" mumbo-jumbo).

"Sacrifice"! That good old refrain of all enslavers.

It is true, people who only care about themselves in a narrow way can't be revolutionaries, for they'll easily be sold out, they'll betray their fellows.

But it is not that a revolution should be divorced from any idea of your own wellbeing.
Yes, more than you, those who benefit from a revolution will be: your children and the future generations.
But you don't have to "give up" the idea of your own wellbeing, and that of your comrades and contemporaries, when conceiving the revolution.

Those who pretend to be the most selfless revolutionaries are also likely to be the most greedy counterrevolutionaries, all the more if their entire ideology is about grabbing state power.

Have we not sacrificed enough already? for centuries? Are we not sacrificing enough in this capitalist order?
Do we need more sacrifice for, and in, the neo-capitalist order that these "revolutionaries" dream up?

For all their talk about liberating the masses, in their innermost depths their only dream is to dominate the masses.

These counterrevolutionaries are cops. They seek to be tyrants. Their "revolution" is counterrevolution. Their subconscious goal is death: of the masses and of Life itself. ACAB!
👏5
Forwarded from ACAB includes Tankies
Generally speaking, the privileged LARPers' very idea of a "revolution" is very different from that of those from marginalized poor families

The former has all this romantic talk of "sacrifice", "love for the people" etc – all these despicable phrases which show that they are LARPers and don't actually belong in the people; they were, and are, privileged, and continue to see themselves ABOVE the people, not as part of them

"All these oppressed proletarians that need to be saved by me"


Vanguardist ideologies are the class equivalent of White/male/savarna savior complex, and should be treated as such

A true revolutionary ideology that comes from the oppressed people would not romanticize the oppressed but seeks their emancipation — emancipation of the oppressed by the oppressed themselves!
👍2
Forwarded from ACAB includes Tankies
When the vanguard consists mostly of privileged people, as is usually the case, — it is a class savior complex

Even if it were to consist mostly of (formerly) underprivileged, working class people — then it's reductive identity politics

(funny that Leninists usually despise meaningful identity politics, while advocating a regime that'd be based hypothetically on reductive identity politics but which in practice turns out to be more like a regime based on privileged people with savior complex in alliance with the bourgeoisie of the previous regime)


Leninism (or any vanguardist, state socialist ideology) is either a result of petty bourgeois savior complex, or petty identity politics, or both...
👍1
Forwarded from ACAB includes Tankies
Yes, the vanguard's constitution doesn't matter a lot... it is secondary, just as it is secondary as to who rules a regular bourgeois republic... a (formerly) working class person being the head of the vanguard doesn't make any more difference than in the case of a (formerly) poor person being made the head of state of a (regular) bourgeois republic

What matters is that the vanguard represents the alienation of the masses — the masses are to renounce their power and revolutionary initiative; they are to become puppets of the government of the new (red) bourgeois republic as they were previously of the former bourgeois republic's government
👍1
Revolution and insurrection must not be looked upon as synony­mous. The former consists in an overturning of conditions, of the established condition or status, the state or society, and is accordingly a political or social act; the latter has indeed for its unavoidable conse­quence a transformation of circumstances, yet does not start from it but from men's discontent with themselves, is not an armed rising, but a rising of individuals, a getting up, without regard to the arrangements that spring from it. The revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on ‘institutions’. It is not a fight against the established, since, if it prospers, the established collapses of itself; it is only a working forth of me out of the estab­lished. If I leave the established, it is dead and passes into decay. Now, as my object is not the overthrow of an established order but my elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not a political or social but (as directed toward myself and my ownness alone) an ego­istic purpose and deed.

The revolution commands one to make arrangements, the insurrec­tion [Empörung] demands that he rise or exalt himself [sich auf- oder emporzurichten]. What constitution was to be chosen, this question busied the revolutionary heads, and the whole political period foams with constitutional fights and constitutional questions, as the social talents too were uncommonly inventive in societary arrangements (phalansteries and the like). The insurgent strives to become constitutionless.


Max Stirner
While, to get greater clearness, I am thinking up a comparison, the founding of Christianity comes unexpectedly into my mind. On the liberal side it is noted as a bad point in the first Christians that they preached obedience to the established heathen civil order, enjoined recognition of the heathen authorities, and confidently delivered a command, ‘Give to the emperor that which is the emperor's’.* Yet how much disturbance arose at the same time against the Roman supremacy, how mutinous did the Jews and even the Romans show themselves against their own temporal government! In short, how popular was ‘political discontent’! Those Christians would hear nothing of it; would not side with the ‘liberal tendencies’. The time was politically so agitated that, as is said in the gospels, people thought they could not accuse the founder of Christianity more successfully than if they arraigned him for ‘political intrigue’, and yet the same gospels report that he was precisely the one who took least part in these political doings. But why was he not a revo­lutionary, not a demagogue, as the Jews would gladly have seen him? Why was he not a liberal? Because he expected no salvation from a change of conditions, and this whole business was indifferent to him. He was not a revolutionary, like Caesar, but an insurgent: not a state-overturner, but one who straightened himself up. That was why it was for him only a matter of 'Be ye wise as serpents', which expresses the same sense as, in the special case, that ‘Give to the emperor that which is the emperor's’; for he was not carrying on any liberal or political fight against the established authorities, but wanted to walk his own way, untroubled about, and undisturbed by, these authorities. Not less indifferent to him than the government were its enemies, for neither understood what he wanted, and he had only to keep them off from him with the wisdom of the serpent. But, even though not a ringleader of popular mutiny, not a demagogue or revol­utionary, he (and every one of the ancient Christians) was so much the more an insurgent, who lifted himself above everything that seemed sublime to the government and its opponents, and absolved himself from everything that they remained bound to, and who at the same time cut off the sources of life of the whole heathen world, with which the established state must wither away as a matter of course; precisely because he put from him the upsetting of the estab­lished, he was its deadly enemy and real annihilator; for he walled it in, confidently and recklessly carrying up the building of his temple over it, without heeding the pains of the immured.

Now, as it happened to the heathen order of the world, will the Christian order fare likewise? A revolution certainly does not bring on the end if an insurrection is not consummated first!

* Matthew 22:21

Max Stirner
👍1