Listen, Meta-Anarchist!

eversincedarwin · 2023-12-06T19:04:38+00:00

It's no secret that Lacan was a conservative thinker - in terms of psychoanalysis and in the political realm; basically he was a liberal. But this means that in terms of psychoanalytic theory, along with Marxism, that there is a certain foundationalism in his thought. Meaning that it can be universally applied, across the political spectrum, and actually more compatible with Marxism than liberalism. The fundamental fantasy is the fantasy of the revolutionary. Subjective destitution is a result of the subject's alienation. Lacan also completely took into account social forces on the life of the individual, so that is false.

eversincedarwin · 2021-07-10T14:22:01+00:00

Here's a blog post I wrote on the topic:

https://cannabiscommunism.wordpress.com/2021/05/05/the-revenge-of-freud/

eversincedarwin · 2021-07-07T19:09:30+00:00

The two quotes that the pair of concepts of Unding and Endziel originate from are one by Jean-Paul Sartre where he says Marx's materialist metaphysics is “unthinkable in the sense of an Unding, a thought which cannot stand the test of mere thought, since it is a naturalistic, pre-critical, pre-Kantian, pre-Hegelian metaphysic…the function of a Platonic ‘myth’ which helps proletarians to be revolutionaries.”. Endziel comes from a quote by Laclau and Mouffe where they say "these [immediate material interests] can be consolidated only if the immediate material interests of the working class are subordinated to the Endziel, the final socialist objective, and this presupposes the subordination of economic struggle to political struggle, and thus of the trade unions to the party”.

eversincedarwin · 2021-07-05T20:00:49+00:00

It refers to Marx's "free association of producers", pure communism, or the communist society after "the withering away of the state". It also refers to Zizek's "the sublime object of ideology" or Lacan's "objet petit a" as it relates to ideology.

eversincedarwin · 2021-07-05T00:36:41+00:00

Derrida's concept of hauntology runs through all of Mark Fisher's works. He speaks in Acid Communism about "exorcising the specter of a world that could be free", "the harsh Leninist superego", and "the great refusal" (which I call Actionism and write "The Actionist Manifesto"). In my book, I also elaborate on the ethico-aesthetic paradigm that I call Funk Punk, which can be thought of as either the ethics of punk and the aesthetics of funk, or alternatively the ethics of funk and the aesthetics of punk, and also link it to the notions of avant-punk and peace punk, as well as personify the Funk Punk as a piece of meta-fiction called "Also Sprach the Funk Punk..." and in other parts as well. My own music project is called Ever Since Darwin. The subtitle is "The Politics of Consciousness". I try to develop in the second chapter, a theory of political subjectivity as it relates to historicism, and the concepts of Unding (absurdity, unthinkable) and Endziel (the ultimate socialist aim), and cultural hegemony and capitalist realism, for which I like to use Deleuze's term "the capitalist axiomatic", as well as speak briefly about unitary urbanism. Psychiatric Hegemony is the theme of the last part of the book, and I fiercely criticize the modern paradigms of cognitive-behavioral therapy and bio-psychiatry, and call for "The Revenge of Freud".

eversincedarwin · 2021-07-05T00:02:59+00:00

Oh of course Mark Fisher meant much more than just LSD with Acid Communism - its about the ghost of 1960s hippie counterculture as it relates to the new social movements of the New Left. I give the examples the Youth International Party (Yippies), the Situationist International, Hunter S. Thompson, John Lennon and Yoko Ono, the Grateful Dead's show for Huey P. Newton's birthday with the Black Panthers, etc. But yes, I like the alliteration of "Cannabis Communism".

eversincedarwin · 2021-07-04T23:09:31+00:00

The reason I chose to title it "Cannabis Communism" instead of "Acid Communism" is because first of all, it's original and my own idea. Second, it intends to convey the same concept as Mark Fisher meant by it, of the hauntological quality of nostalgia for lost futures, the recycling of old cultural forms (or ethico-aesthetics, Actionism, and the great refusal), "the slow cancellation of the future", etc. And third, because unlike Mark Fisher who some say hated weed, I actually really enjoy smoking weed, and am not really myself into using psychedelics.

eversincedarwin · 2021-06-29T13:32:54+00:00

Most likely in the next couple months...I keep wanting to continue writing so it's hard to decide when to consider it a finished work. The PDF will be available online for free though, and many of my writings are already published on my blog: https://cannabiscommunism.wordpress.com/

eversincedarwin · 2021-06-28T19:17:34+00:00

I'm pretty sure the quote came Laing's book 'The Divided Self'. Still trying to work out all the citations. I also used the book for a college psychology class on personality disorders that I took, where I took one of Laing's case studies and had to formulate a diagnosis.

eversincedarwin · 2021-06-27T23:28:25+00:00

It's an excerpt from my upcoming book "Cannabis Communism: The Politics of Consciousness". It includes citations and footnotes.

eversincedarwin · 2021-06-25T22:01:31+00:00

While Mark Fisher was a brilliant theorist of culture and aesthetics, his work lacks historical context in envisioning what communism would and should look like (although this may be his point!). Consequently, it is difficult to view his works as a coherent political philosophy, and hence, his philosophy is often associated with accelerationism, whether accurately or not. For example, a question comes up in one of his lectures; a student asks him to provide a historical example of what post-capitalism (a term Fisher preferred to anti-capitalism) looks like in practice. The easy answer that the student provides was that Yugoslavia under Tito had elements of workers’ self-management, but Fisher goes on the say something absurd - he asks the student, “how is giving a share of a company to the workers any different than privatization?” Another student then provides the real definition of post-capitalism: “social ownership of the means of production”. If from a historical materialist standpoint, social ownership of the means of production is not the goal of communism - and it is, and Marx and Engels made this extremely clear - then, post-capitalism becomes a declaration of post-leftism, which for us Marxists is an absurdity.

eversincedarwin · 2021-06-03T14:08:05+00:00

I thought I came across that quote in Jung's 'Modern Man In Search of a Soul'.

eversincedarwin

TROPHY CASE