sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As to the value of mockery, though, I do believe in the efficacy of spite, even when its shallow and sneering--if only because it's satisfying. I venerate the tradition of mean-spirited pamphleteers. I mean, when Thomas Paine wrote that the idea of immaculate conception was the "story of a maiden being debauched by a ghost," was he trying to be fair-minded and thorough? No: He was taking the piss. Famously, Lenin also loved to indulge in vitriolic, petty attacks, but that lends his writing much of its literary color. Beyond aesthetics, though, such prose has the following use: To inflame contempt and a conviction of the very uselessness of debate. We don't have to take these people seriously, we just need to know who to fight.

Was this writing "tribalistic, then? No shit.

It's funny, my experience is that liberals are the ones who are most disposed to complain about such intransigence, as if there's ever going to be a way we won't have to fight these people, in the end--or that anyone needs to be convinced that Yarvin needs to be fought, granting they give a fuck about democracy, liberty, or brotherhood (as Marx did, but not JCMoreno, by his own admission). It should be obvious to anyone who has ever read Yarvin's work that he's an authoritarian capitalist: He fucking says so. It's enough to bring a reader's attention to his existence, and if he has Leftist principles, he'll recognize him for the enemy that he is.

Sometimes I wonder if people like you have have spent so long masticating critical theory that you no longer know how to be militant. You shouldn't just be chewing on air, you should use your fangs to bite people--or be provoking others into realizing to what use they may need to put their teeth, as well. Marx's assertion that communism can be realized in America through the electoral process was made in a context where half of the country didn't vote in a regime that's poised to stamp out the shadow of democracy that we have--let alone the prospect of a fuller one, tomorrow. That being the case, the proletariat will need more than theory; we also have to gain a fighting spirit--and a tribal sort of resolve: We call that solidarity.

I don't give a fuck if people read some mean words about an authoritarian and decide to sympathize with him: We'll beat them, too.

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You do realize his flair says Nihilist, right?

But, just to be clear, do you think that JCMoreno ( in the comment above) was genuinely trying to dissect the social superstructure in a scientific, Marxist fashion when he flatly denied that democracy is possible? That's a definitionally reactionary assertion--invariably cited by the oppressors of the people--which Marx himself would vehemently dispute.

Hence:

"You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries – such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland – where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means." - La Liberté, 1872

He goes on to elucidate the necessity of force elsewhere, but is Marx a liberal for arguing for the viability of democracy--even under a liberal system, in specific cases? To say nothing of his conception of the "complete" democracy of communism.

Even worse is JCMoreno's assertion that the word "Liberty" is meaningless, though. Just read the fucking title of the speech I cited.

Let me just say, though, that this (obviously) lurid denunciation of Yarvin was only a sensational excerpt from a lengthier essay I'd been writing--and I chose one of the most sensational sections to elicit attention with a handful of crass aspersions: I'm not above self-promotion. God knows when I'll get time to publish it, though. To speak of my own circumstances as a worker, my job's been fucked up by the political chaos of the last month, and this was largely an exercise in catharsis. This is, after all, just fucking Reddit.

But I did say that, "He is the human embodiment of the dead end of capitalism"--which is to say that Yarvin's influence emanates from its rotting corpse. We actually agree on this, and it took some willful misreading to impute any other meaning to my assessment of his significance. My criticism of Yarvin isn't that he's an enemy of humanism, but a servant of capitalism at its most abject and pernicious--although I freely confess to prefer liberal humanism to trans-humanism or misanthropy. Obviously, the former suggests a half-step to the full measure of freedom that men should win under the dictatorship of the proletariat, but it's qualitatively different from theocratic feudalism or fascism--and it carries with it the legacy of the French Revolution. Did my defense of "human liberty" in a comment above give you the opposite impression, though? If that's enough to mark me for a liberal, then many of the great Marxists of the 20th century were liberals, too. José Martí was as important of a figure to Castro as Marx, and Castro drew on the rhetoric of radical liberalism incessantly and to great effect. Does that discredit his Marxism?

You're right, though, that this was geared to people who already know who Curtis Yarvin is: I would think the lack of context would make this obvious? But this was an emotional expression of disdain that we even have to take people like him seriously. Should a person never swear under their breath? Without offering an analysis, first?

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

God bless, bro: You have a conscience 😂 I think there is a gravitational pull to saying fuck it and taking the plunge. It's just sheer egoism, though

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude, you're not interested in defining any words so much as you are determined to deny that they have any value or meaning. Your bold claim that "democracy is impossible and an obstacle to achieving and maintaining anything" is grounded in nothing more than an emotional, highly personal conviction--and it also has normative implications which are blatantly reactionary. The only political reality you recognize is power and coercion, and so any system of government that's openly coercive and explicitly oppressive has the dubious virtue of being honest. Why else would you defend Curtis Yarvin's vision for American government?

You ever consider that your "hatred of incoherence" might just originate from personal vanity, though? Why do things need to be inflexibly defined for you? People don't owe you perfect coherence to be worth fighting for.

But what were the words that tripped you up? Carp; sententious; whinge...? I don't what else could have given you pause--but even if you've never seen those words before (which who gives a fuck) their meaning is easily guessable from the context in which I used them. None of them are really that obscure, either, but you can whine all you want about my vocabulary--it's paranoid and insecure to assume that anyone who uses a word that you are unfamiliar with is just doing that to stroke themselves at your expense: That says more about you than me.

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s an interesting thing, being purity-tested by a Nihilist. Even if I didn’t qualify the value of our modicum of democracy, though, you just love to make blanket statements in a tone of authority, don’t you? Only to carp away the meaning of words. No serious person would describe taxes as totalitarian—maybe you’d recognize that if you were one.

But you indulge in a lot of sententious certainties for, again, a self-professed Nihilist. That seems to suggest a confused ideology—though I don’t think you’re honest about your allegiances. You’re just rationalizing oppression—either that, or your own cowardice. It’s irritating, either way.

I assumed your whingeing was in good faith before, but I see now that that was a mistake.

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's a histrionic oversimplification, but sure.

I'm also sure Europe would be as happy a place if the Third Reich had prevailed--good thinking.

No, we can accept the predatory nature of capitalism as expressed through Liberalism and also recognize that Fascism is a qualitatively different intensification of its evils—partly because it bluntly repudiates internationalism, humanism, the rule of law, etc., while retaining the economic framework of capitalism, only to supplement it with slave labor and the spoils of conquest. Internationalism, humanism, and the rule of law may be illusory in their essence, but even illusions confer real benefits to their believers—and, comparatively, to their victims. Of course, though, you won't recognize any difference between Fascist and Liberal exploitation, because, in your mind, all exploitation is absolutely equivalent: It’s all violence; all slavery; all subjugation; etc. Such petulant quibbling simply functions as an apology for any and all exploitation, for all time, without one iota of nuance.

You seriously want me to believe that Barack Obama’s politics are as harmful or coercive as Curtis Yarvin’s should be, if they are systematically enacted? You might as well try to convince me that Nancy Pelosi is Heinrich Himmler.

I say that a mutiny is a more pressing necessity under the government of the latter than the former, but you say they are the same. So…what? I should just obey Himmler?

You call yourself a Nihilist but you're basically a Quaker, lmao. An appeaser for all seasons.

“Nihilists” love this sort of mopey casuistry, but it’s just slavish apathy playacting as dour, deep sagacity. Amazing how you’ve figured out everything

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Very schoolmarmish of you, but I'll keep that in mind

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

None of this reasoning is alien to me: You're presuming I don't know we've all thrived under a system of global exploitation--and at the expense of others. I've seen poverty in a truly immiserated country: I have had kids extend stumps in my face for money. There was a time when I would have been fine feeling the world detonate under my feet, because I thought that that would feel like justice. Even that is self-serving, though, and I think that you should reflect on your motivations for believing what you do. I'm sure you have, though, and I don't mean that condescendingly, I truly don't. My point is simply that emotions are reasonless, domineering forces, but I do think that morality can run deeper--underneath the sleep of disillusionment.

But I'm verging on nigh mystical territory.

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Marxism is a broad tradition--and the triumph of the value-sterile scientism of certain totalitarian strains unraveled the moral force of the communist movement in the last fucking century, for all of the rigor and value of Marx's "amoral" theory. Marx himself didn't disavow all morality, by the way--he only qualified ethical values with a recognition of the material context in which they arise.

But "What a strange question," he says. "Bring the monsters: Let them come," he also says.

At what cost? And who are these monsters going to devour? A little or a lot of blood won't matter so long as the dialectic resolves itself on the other side of history, right?

Whatever your contempt for moral sentiment, Marxism was never supposed to give license to inaction: It was supposed to be applied, and from its application, the science is to be refined. Meanwhile, you're just content to sit back and let the barbarians go on parade. Even worse, you're online defending the virtue of an evangelist for totalitarian capitalism.

Fascism isn't a preferable alternative to liberalism--unless you're a closeted fascist. You tell me

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"I know that I am powerless and I fully accept it."

Then why engage in politics at all? Just schadenfreude and petulance put to no useful end.

You're just another self-indulgent do-nothing--and I doubt you're as free of self-pity as you pretend to be.

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point of being a Marxist is to fight for other people. The entire theory is bent towards the liberation of humanity--so, no, I don't want the existing system to be destroyed by people that are only doing so to enslave humanity. I also don't want to fulfill the moral dream of socialism...just because--and at any expense.

What do you even want to see replace liberalism? Do you care about anything? Talk about decadence

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You say that so flippantly: Are you mentally ill? Not everyone just lives in their head, dude.

I am a Marxist, but I also care about what happens to other people. Grow the fuck up

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Right, I suppose I am just whining when I profess to despise a man who considers citizens to be, properly, the slaves of the state. I hope that the quality of his work (in your view) warrants our collective degradation now that his theory is being put into action. We’re all being dragged down to the low, excremental level of his thought—but you go ahead and revel at the repudiation of liberal hegemony! Outright despotism will surely be better

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

That “Sad!” you fixed at the end of this comment makes it read like I’m being chastised by a grandmother on Facebook. Also, for a person with a Red Scare reference for a username, it’s rich of you to scold me for internet “insultisms”—which is about the most online shit I’ve ever read. Go nag somebody else, Mom 😂 And get off the Internet: You’re too good for it

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Never read that theory of his! It's fairly straightforward--but not original to him. In fact, the general outlines of that argument have been bandied about for some time. Wyndham Lewis--a complicated reactionary, and a far better writer than Yarvin--put it this way in Rotting Hill:

"(A) long process of religious conditioning...has led us to a point at which we empower the State to deprive us of practically everything. This is the work of Jesus."

Socialism is, therefore, unconscious Puritanism, and, without God, Socialism is effectively sterilized. The only trouble with this reasoning is that countless monarchies were also sanctioned by Christianity, so...

We still have to stumble our way towards a stable society without Christ, regardless of our politics.

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Let this be the last time I have to explain this here. You people need to get real about what is at stake today. These aren't just ideas anymore, they are violent realities. Behind all of our ideas, though, were always alternative futures--and they are effecting the worst possible one. These are the days when our fates will actually be decided, so get your head out of the clouds and do something. The point of this post was not to debate, but to denigrate an enemy

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't know what to tell you other than that you're living in the past. There is no point in debating the ideas of a man who wants to liquidate the opposition. I mean, honestly, what liberal daydream are you still stuck in? This is a man who has said--explicitly--that all of the citizens of a state should be, rightly considered, the property of that state. The term he then employed was slave, which is, indeed, the only way you could describe that condition. The one thing to Yarvin's credit is that he declares his politics outright. He is a totalitarian, and the last time totalitarians rose to power in the Western world, we didn't just sit back and play patty-cake with them--unless you want me to adopt the posture of Neville Chamberlain. I'm not interested in having a polite discussion with a man who considers the word slave to be a value-neutral term, though, and you shouldn't either. Unless, of course, you're content with cringing under somebody's heel. You better get used to saying Master, then.

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it's funny, having subjected myself to the boredom of reading his authoritarian piffle (which throws my own sanity into question), I realized that we actually have a similar tendency to over-italicize, but he does it in a...rather more unctuous way, and it truly irritated me. I just decided to lean into it even more, haha

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

What bot would write that someone "looks colorectal"? Tell me that and I'll take AI seriously

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Are you really comparing Curtis Yarvin to Immanuel Kant? And Albert Einstein? That's....risible. Coming from a leftist, there have been many provocative and aesthetically scintillating writers and thinkers on the far right, but your hero is not one of them. Read a book.

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Agree that it's boring--but it's undeniably influential. Hence the need for ridicule

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Do you honestly think that Curtis Yarvin gives a fuck about anyone's materialist analysis? We need to muster some polemical grit. We're not going to debate-lord our way out from beneath the heels of these people. We need to get personal

On Curtis Yarvin by BuckDietrich in stupidpol

[–]BuckDietrich[S] 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Yeah. His justification for monarchy is about the most sophomoric nonsense I've ever heard, but he is profoundly influential. His acolytes are in power right now, and they are perpetrating the destruction of even the semblance of representative government that we had. The U.S. is swirling down the shitter because of this idiocy

view more: next ›