The Libertarian Marxist Manifesto

Author's note: I have linked to this piece of mine in a previous post, but this is the first time I am posting it on this blog in full. I have changed a few words here and there for the sake of grammatical accuracy, but it remains nearly the same as the first version.

The Libertarian Marxist Manifesto

An opinion by putinsbearhandler

It is not hard to see that our country is broken. Look around you, look at the half a million homeless cast out onto our streets, at the destitute masses cast aside and left to starve. While we slave, while we starve, the ruling class rests comfortably upon the fruit of our labor. They distract us with their antics, their inventions and scandals and frivolities. When we see through their illusions and fight for our freedom, they turn us against each other. Their lackeys, our fellow workers poisoned by their lies, the police, shoot us down and keep us in the dirt. We are slaves to the system, to money, to the ruling class. Capitalism, racism, bigotry, and tyranny are the weapons of the rulers. We, the people, will strike them down.

The problem is capitalism, the solution is communism. This is our banner under which we will fight for the freedom of all humanity. When we say freedom, we truly mean freedom, not just tyranny disguised as liberation. To this end, we do not aim to establish a Soviet-style entity. The point of communism is not to establish state supremacy over the economy. The point of communism is not to “make everyone equal” by erecting city blocks of uniform concrete. The point of communism is not to replace tyranny with red tyranny. The point of communism is to fight for the liberation of humankind.

How, then, should we, the people, carry out this fight? The answer does not lie in reform. The establishment of socialism, the process of the people taking what is rightfully ours, by definition requires revolution. Ending the tyranny of the banks, the state, the police, the capitalists, all of this would never be permitted to occur through parliamentary reform - in fact, in the rare historical instances of a parliamentary socialist victory, reactionary forces have struck them down after a few years every time. Socialist parties have existed in our country for well over a century, yet we are presently no closer to abolishing capitalism than we were at the dawn of American socialism. That being said, we should not discount the considerable victories that have been gradually won through prolonged agitation - what little economic freedom we workers have today are owed to the valiant struggles of our proletarian ancestors, the socialists, anarchists, and labor movements of times past. Thus, while we unequivocally reject parliamentary participation, we have nothing but respect for our mainstream leftist allies, both historical and present-day. Our comrades do not deserve ridicule or rejection, but solidarity and discussion. On a related note, while we reject parliamentary participation, we uncompromisingly reject the ridiculous notion that all agitation should be strictly related to class struggle. Protesting for the rights and common humanity of race, gender, sexual, romantic, and physical minorities is essential. Fighting against the manifest suffering and oppression of the least among us is more important than slavish devotion to an abstract concept of class. By no means does this entail weakening our commitment to class struggle; rather, it means that one cannot destroy tyranny without taking into account the unique struggles of the myriad minorities among us. While we reject parliamentary socialist agitation, we still emphasize the importance of fighting against bigotry and tyranny. To this end, we support non-socialist struggles with sufficiently progressive tendencies, such as Black Lives Matter and the Rainbow Underground. Additionally, while we do not advocate for a unified party to organize workers into a single union, we support the struggles of the various labor unions to improve the material conditions of the people and raise class consciousness.

We have shown that reform has no chance of destroying capitalism. On the other extreme of the road towards communism is immediate revolution, an approach we also reject. The harsh truth is that were a communist revolution to erupt right now, the people would by and large not be willing to take up arms against the state. This is not to say revolution is wrong; rather, it would be detrimental to the cause to launch a revolution that would only have the support of a small section of the people. The people must believe in the cause, they must truly believewhat they’re fighting for. This is for two reasons: one, that a revolution without mass support would be crushed, and two, that revolution, a true movement for liberation, cannot be forced upon an unwilling populace. The point of communism is not to replace one unpopular system with another. The point is to fight for a better future. To this end, we advocate a prolonged campaign of raising class consciousness through community organizing and service. The homeless, the starving, the afflicted, the destitute - these are the least among us, our brothers and sisters left behind. They are the people most savagely crushed by capitalism. They have lost the most, yet they have a world to win. As communists, it is our duty to humanity to relieve suffering. Thus, establishing common housing, nourishment, healthcare, and education for all those in need will be our first step towards building revolution. We will uplift the people from their suffering, and through our example, we will show the world what we can do. With the outcasts now lifted up and committed to our fight for liberation, we will march forward with our program of raising class consciousness and building revolution.

I would like to take a moment to discuss the intersection of language and theory. We reject any ideations of “leading the working class”. Similarly, we reject the concept of a “vanguard party”. To create an elite club of “educated” or “professional” revolutionaries separate from and above the working class is an abomination, a perversion of everything socialism stands for. We will not “lead the people”, we will not “lead the revolution”. We will become one with the people. We will become the revolution. While we do advocate for the creation of a revolutionary party, we support a party in the style of the Black Panthers - not a vanguard, but an organization one and the same with the people. In fact, we do not advocate for revolution until a significant majority of the population supports it - as previously stated, we have no desire to force revolution upon an unwilling people. To this end, we view a party as a necessary tool to build revolution - not to dictate the working class, and not as decentralized as the anarchists, but simply as a tool to organize revolution.

We will continue to build class consciousness until a nationwide plebiscite on revolution is conducted. If, and only if, the people support it, we will launch our revolution. Marxist theory (and I am referring here to Marx alone, not Lenin or later theorists) advocates for the creation of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat as an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism. Most people have a negative reaction to the word “dictatorship”, but Marx was not describing the totalitarian rule of a single ruler. Marx theorized that capitalist society was, in essence, a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie - that is, a society dominated by the bourgeoisie ruling class, upheld and defended by an iron fist at gunpoint. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is what follows a communist revolution - or, to be more precise, it follows the outbreak of a communist revolution; the continued existence of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat should technically be regarded as a continuation of the revolution, which does not truly end until capitalism is completely abolished. Communism is the antithesis to capitalism: it has no state, no currency, no classes. Marx realized that such a society could not possibly be brought about immediately following a revolution - after all, how can government, money, and class be completely abolished when every other nation on the planet is diametrically opposed to such a society? Would class not still exist, as the treacherous bourgeoisie foment counterrevolution in a desperate bid to reclaim their former dominance? Would a government not still exist as a necessary means to defend against capitalist aggression, and to spread the revolution? However, although we accept the necessity of a revolutionary state, we do not do so without reservation. We are painfully aware of the excuse frequently made by vanguardists, the claim that a so-called “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” is a positive development, even when such “revolutionary” states have done nothing to liberate the international working class or to give power to their own workers for decades on end. We have no desire to establish a stagnant Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and we certainly have no desire to establish “Socialism in One Country”. The longer a Dictatorship of the Proletariat exists, the more likely it will develop capitalist, bureaucratic trends. Thus, at the very moment a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is born, it begins a deadly struggle against itself, a struggle to expand the revolution internationally or to regress into state capitalist bureaucracy. In this vein, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat must be at constant war with the entire world. A Dictatorship of the Proletariat that remains static will wither and die. The only way to perpetuate the revolution and to continue towards complete communism is to constantly expand. By this, we do not mean to send in the tanks and “conquer” anyone, Soviet-style; as previously stated, revolution cannot be forced upon an unwilling populace. Rather, we must ideologically spread the revolution to all corners of the globe, and once individual populaces support us, we launch revolution there. We continue this process of infiltration, agitation, conversion, and revolution, until we have an international Dictatorship of the Proletariat that can stand up to the world’s ruling class. We will fan the flames of revolution until all of humankind is free. With a global, total Dictatorship of the Proletariat, capital will no longer pose a threat. With the support of the people, we will have no bourgeoisie to defend against. We will not need money to fund wars, we will not need governments to direct people. We will have peace, security, stability. We will have humanity. We will have our freedom.

That being said, we have no faith in “human nature” to simply allow the revolutionary state to wither away. We must be constantly on guard against opportunists who would take advantage of their authority to give in to the allure of capital. Additionally, while we agree with Marx that the global triumph of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will create the conditions necessary to make it redundant, we stress the need for a deliberate, dedicated effort to gradually dismantle the revolutionary state apparatus.

What will the Dictatorship of the Proletariat look like? It will most likely arise in a single country. Although we firmly reject all aspects of nationalism, especially the contradictory concept of “Socialism in One Country”, we acknowledge the simple fact that it is convenient to build revolution among a common (or at least, ostensibly common) culture. This is not to say that any particular country is a “better” starting point for revolution; we are simply advocating the strategy employed, on some level, by all political parties. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, whenever and wherever it is established, will replace the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. As previously stated, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not an immediate transition from an unjust capitalist society to a perfectly equal, classless one. It will not be a Jacobin-esque reign of terror, and it will not be a party-dominated orgy of authoritarianism. Contrary to the most common interpretation of the concept, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will not entail the revolutionary state taking control of the entire economy. In fact, the managing of the economy - that is, the way in which the workers conduct their labor - should be left to the workers themselves. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat should have no control over any function unless it absolutely cannot be managed by the workers themselves. At the time of writing, I am of the belief that it needs control only over social services (seizing, distributing, and creating housing, food, healthcare, education, etc.) and the formation of a revolutionary army, which would encourage mass enlistment from the people (voluntarily, of course). Everyone willing and able to fight will be needed if we are to liberate the entire world. I would like to again emphasize that as many functions as possible should be handled by the workers themselves so as to limit the authority of the revolutionary state. Much like the revolutionary party, the revolutionary state is an inherently dangerous, decaying structure. Its only reason for existing is that its end goal - complete communism - is not yet achievable. Its only purpose is to relieve the suffering of the people and to spread the revolution across the globe. As such, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat should coordinate the seizure and distribution of housing, food, medical services, education, and mental and emotional health, including the liberation of neurodivergent children from “mental health” camps and counseling and services for all gender, sexual, and romantic minorities in need of assistance.

As previously stated, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not the same thing as communism; rather, it is a transitory stage between the tyranny of capitalism and the future of communism. As such, it is not an immediate establishment of a perfectly peaceful, democratic society for all. The only way to protect and perpetuate the revolution is to suppress our class enemies. Although this blunt application of state power is, by bourgeois, Western standards, undemocratic, it is both justified and necessary. However, by no means does this justify cruelty. While I do not advocate a completely, immediately, and thoroughly democratic anarchist-style society established through revolution, I am vehemently opposed to all manifestations of tyranny. Seizing the factories, the mansions, the streets and the fields from the bourgeoisie does not require heads to roll. We will take what we need so that we all may live our lives free from suffering.

Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

Queer Liberation Now!

While I have previously stated that I do not advocate for violent proletarian revolution until the people are willing to support it, I am of the firm belief that struggles other than class deserve armed support. Case in point: my online comrades and I recently reconnected with a trans comrade in Romania. For the sake of her safety, I won't reveal any identifying information. What I can say is that she has suffered agonizing abuse and persecution because of her identity. Her treatment is overlooked by the law, and she could even be involuntarily committed to an asylum - perfectly legally. While GSRM (Gender, Sexual, and Romantic Minorities) liberation is intrinsically tied in with class struggle, and while true class struggle cannot be fought without complete GSRM, racial, religious, and physically disabled liberation, we cannot allow our comrades to suffer. Truly proletarian revolution cannot be conducted without Queer/GSRM liberation, but that does not mean that we cannot fight for Queer liberation right now.

All across the world, GSRM people are persecuted, beaten, raped, and killed on a daily basis.

This will not be tolerated.

I propose the establishment of an international Queer liberation brigade to smuggle those facing persecution out of immediate danger. I know a couple of GSRM people who, though they live in reactionary countries, have not been outed to the government. Scores of other people, such as our Romanian comrade, have been exposed and face immediate state persecution. I propose we establish communication with foreign comrades to facilitate the rescue and safe extraction of persecuted Queer folks. While I do not think it beneficial to launch proletarian revolution, I think it is quite self-evident that entirely legal methods will not be able to rescue those in danger. We need to fight now. We need to stop the assaults and murders against our comrades (and whether they support us or not, all GSRM folk are inherently comrades of ours.) 

The time for apathy and protest is over.

The time for action is upon us.

Talk to your friends. Reach out on social media. Connect with our international comrades. Organize cells for the liberation of our Queer comrades. Take up arms to end this brutal repression! I am not speaking rhetorically here; it is time to fight! We will fight for our freedom, for our liberation, for our future!

"I'm no longer accepting the things I cannot change...I'm changing the things I cannot accept." -Angela Davis

Author's note: while I am still new to real-life organizing, my comrades and I are part of a large social media network who might be able to help. If you need help, contact my twitter account listed on my profile.

I can't promise anything. I'm just some lost college kid. 

But I can try.

If you think it's worth the risk, contact me.

Hope for the Future, Pessimism for the Revolution, and Why Both Are Important

In this piece, I will attempt to address the ideological contrast between optimistic hope for a glorious socialist future and pessimism for struggling towards a futile global revolution.

There appear to be two opposite extremes when it comes to hope for the future. One side marches in the streets, side by side with their comrades, waving the red flag of socialism. They dream of a future utopia where all are cared for and none are oppressed, where everyone has food, housing, healthcare, education, friends, love. They dream of a proletarian future of world socialism, of world peace, world harmony. They dream of fighting side by side as they stand victorious, basking in the glory of a beautiful sun rising over the world of the future. 

On the other side is the nihilist. Perhaps they are a post-left anarchist whose major defining idea is a rejection of the futility of fighting for a world revolution. Perhaps they are a more mainstream anarchist, or even a communist, disillusioned with the formulaic, bureaucratic monotony of endless meetings and conferences. They reject the sectarian vanguardism of mainstream communist parties, their stagnant meetings and petty drama. They have no faith in a cohesive, united revolution to captivate the international proletariat. They rely on themselves and their friends, those they trust and love, to carry out individual acts of agitation, be it community service or direct action.

While I am of the opinion that neither extreme is desirable, I lean slightly more in favor of the former. I think both have valid points. While I sympathize with the post-left disillusionment with the mainstream vanguardist movements - hell, I've been shouted out of plenty of online vanguardist communities* - I don't personally see that as a reason to abandon mass agitation altogether. (I would like to make clear that all of this is my opinion; I have no intention of "debunking" my postie comrades.) I understand the aversion to mass movements, I really do; they're so often sectarian, puritanical, and pedantic about their precious i m m o r t a l s c i e n c e. However, I still think a traditional, planned revolution is preferable. While I understand the pessimistic outlook, I think mass agitation should be conducted, while being tempered with realism. I do truly believe we can make a better world, a better future. I truly believe we can uplift the poor, the starving, the homeless, the destitute out of their misery. But we also shouldn't have any delusions about a perfect future. Revolution is not pretty. We will not walk hand in hand into the sunset; we will wage revolutionary war against the capitalist forces of the entire world. People will die. 

But it is necessary. The reactionary destruction of all historical examples of democratic socialist reforms shows that the bourgeoisie will never give up their power willingly. They will fight to their last breath for it, and we will be hammer that strikes them down. We need not be cruel in our struggle, but we must be vigilant.

We must fight to the end.

*(What, you thought I had negative experiences with vanguardists in real life? Pfft, that would require getting off my ass and actually doing irl agitation. I am currently exploring socialist organizations near me to see if I agree with any enough to join.)





The star of revolution will rise high above the streets of Moscow, from a sea of blood and fire, and turn into a lodestar to lead a liberated humanity!

Atassa, ITS, and Why Ecofash are Losers

Well, this is certainly a very niche topic to discuss on only my second ever post. But, if you're actually reading this, I'm assuming you're probably a leftist who is familiar with all the divisions and sects among anarchism and socialism. I will try to give a very basic explanation of these topics, so if you already know what I'm talking about, then this shouldn't be too much of a waste of time.


Let me make one thing straight: ECO-FASCISTS ARE ABSOLUTE GARBAGE. I will from now on refer to them as ecofash, because that's what they fuckin are, they are not eco-terrorists, they are not-eco-extremists, they are not eco-warriors. They have not spiked trees. They have not stood up to the Forest Service. They haven't done any agitation or organizing, they haven't been beaten by the cops, they haven't burned down hunting lodges or lumber mills or freed animals condemned to be vivisected. All they've done is murder innocent people. They barely have anything to do with leftism, or even environmentalism. They kill without purpose, without any hope of a better world. They give no quarter, and they deserve none. 

There are a couple of different ecofash groups, but I will mainly be talking about ITS, Individuals Tending Towards the Wild (in Spanish, Individualidades tendiendo a lo Salvaje). Atassa is the name of a collection of essays, poems, and communiques written by Ecofash, some of whom merely believe in that ideology. Others have personally carried out murders. A full transcription of it can be found here: https://archive.org/stream/AtassaReadingsInEcoExtremism/Atassa%20-%20Readings%20in%20Eco-Extremism_djvu.txt

There is an important distinction between ecoterrorists and ecofash. Ecoterrorists have conducted a wide variety of direct actions, including spiking trees to prevent logging, arson against luxurious and wasteful hunting lodges, arsons and bombings of logging operations, and occupations of forestry to prevent logging. While I do not condone bombing - it's rather extreme, and it can lead to innocent deaths (as far as I know, ecoextremists have never done this - only ecofash have). The arsons I am a little more sympathetic towards - I still have a little anarchist in me from back in the day, and besides, who doesn't enjoy a little property damage? The tree spiking and occupations I have nothing but unconditional support for - although I am not exactly on the spectrum of eco-socialism or eco-anarchism, I very much sympathize with those brave enough to stand up and fight. In a similar vein, while I am not a vegan, I have much respect for the Animal Liberation Front and their operations.

Ecoterrorist - someone who commits acts of terrorism for the cause of environmentalism. I don't think that's a very fair description; spiking a tree is not terrorism, occupying a forest is not terrorism. The real terrorists, the people who are actually murdering innocents, are the cops and the fascists who have only grown bolder in the last few years. But ecofash...they are on a whole different level. I don't even want to call them terrorists - not because they don't deserve it, they most certainly do, but being a terrorist implies having some sort of concrete cause or ideology, something consistent and logical and sustainable. Ecofash have no such thing.

Let us first examine the ideas of ecofash, so we can all better understand why they're complete fucking garbage. You're probably already familiar with concepts like anti-civ and post-civ. While I don't share their goal of the end of modern civilization and industry, I will gladly recognize them as quote-on-quote "valid" ideologies. I've discussed theory with a couple anticivs, and they're great people. Ecofash, however, are an extreme perversion of anticiv thought. Anticivs are usually also post-leftists, which is why they don't believe in the possibility of an intentional revolution, be it socialist, anarchist, or anticiv. Rather, they believe that the environmental destruction our species has caused - and the conflicts they create - will inevitably lead to worldwide catastrophe, be it ecological, global or nuclear warfare, or all three. In this sense, anticivs are passive revolutionaries - while they are not lazy, as they educate and spread their theory like most leftists, they do not support using violent means to bring about a revolution. Some anticivs do support certain nonlethal operations carried out by actually decent groups, such as the Earth Liberation Front, but an important distinction between anticivs and ecofash is that anticivs don't want to kill anyone. The ecofash, though...put simply, they are monsters.

"Eco-extremism is a tendency that seeks to recover the wild. It exalts one’s ancestral warrior instincts and declares war on all that is civilized. Eco-extremism is embodied in individual eco-extremists hiding in plain sight who emerge with cold ferocity at the opportune time. The eco-extremist is an individualist in that he defies the prohibition of the collective or community, any community, to fight, injure, maim, or kill. No collective has the authority to tell him or her what to do, as they have all forfeited their (non-existent) authority with their continuous war against Wild Nature. Along with the renunciation of the collective is a renunciation of hope or any “future primitive.” Eco-extremists believe that this world is garbage, they understand progress as industrial slavery, and they fight like cornered wild animals since they know that there is no escape. They look death in the eye, and yell, “Hoka Hey!” (Today is a good day to die.)

"Eco-extremism thus posits a pessimism concerning human endeavors and achievements, whether these are physical, spiritual, or moral. That is why it opposes civilization, especially in its techno-industrial manifestation. Modern civilization seeks to subjugate all to itself, and its hubris is its downfall. Eco-extremists seek to be instruments of that downfall, though they do not believe that they can bring it about themselves."

"Indiscriminate attack: The modern progressive mind objects to indiscriminate attack since it has not yet been able to shake off Western morality. For eco-extremists, acting indiscriminately is one of the primary methods of attack. To attack indiscriminately is to strike a target without regard for so-called innocent bystanders or collateral damage. While eco-extremist individualists usually take aim at targets that are significant to the techno-industrial society (government ministries, universities, transport vehicles), individualist terrorists do so with the intent of inflicting the maximum amount of damage, and this includes human casualties."

I hope these excerpts from Atassa can give an adequate introduction to ecofash theory. Basically, ecofash believe they can "return to nature" by destroying civilization itself - every single aspect of it. Although, like post-left anticivs, they do not believe in conducting a traditional revolution, and do not even believe in their own capability to personally bring about an end to civilization, they paradoxically decide that they should murder people anyway. They admit they have no faith in the possibility of conducting a successful anticiv revolution, they admit they are an outcast extreme in an already niche ideology. Yet they continue their attacks of indiscriminate murder.

"It is a product of the contradictions of our time, of the haziness of anthropological scholarship, of the renunciation of political action, and of the contemporary ideological impasse. This tendency knows that this impasse will not be solved by better philosophies or moral codes, but only in the destruction of all that exists, including the “hyper-civilized” (i.e. all of us). Techno-industrial society is a problem that should have never existed in the first place, and all of the defects and contradictions of eco-extremism as an ideology are the result of society’s contradictions reflected as in a distorted mirror. There is no solution. The only appropriate response is fire and bullets. This attitude puts the eco-extremist at odds not only with the authorities of techno-industrial society, but also with other so-called radical groups. There are no “call outs” or expressions of solidarity in eco-extremism. There is no attempt by eco-extremism to morally or philosophically justify itself. Innocence or guilt never enter into the eco-extremist calculus."

"Theoretical eclecticism is only countered in the eco-extremist with single-mindedness in violent attack. The eco-extremist has cast off his or her affinity with the hyper-civilized and sees virtually everyone as an enemy. These individualists have come to value attack more than their very lives, as countless other warriors and savages have done before them. They don’t ask for help from those whom they have come to see as at best useless, and at worst the hated adversary worthy of death. The eco-extremists are already on the radar of the authorities of the countries where they operate, and beyond. They are under no illusion that they will be able to evade them indefinitely."

"Suitable recruits to the revolutionary movement will include only those who are prepared to abandon the old values and morality and adopt in their place the revolutionary values and morality. The revolutionary message needs to be addressed to and designed for, not the general public, but the small minority of people who have the potential to become committed members of the revolutionary organization." [Author's note: fuck this vanguardist bullshit.]

"On June 28th, the only ITS group that had not taken responsibility for anything to that point, namely, ITS-Mexico, stabbed an UNAM worker, leaving him to die on the grounds of the most prestigious campus in the country, the University City."

"On the 19th, ITS-Argentina took responsibility for the poisoning of numerous bottles of Coca-Cola that they left in the refrigerators of two shopping centers in Buenos Aires, a formidable 

attack against the lives of hyper-civilized southerners."

"With complicity as well with all who take responsibility for savage and hidden attacks, for the unknown and the mayhem, the chaos and nothingness. For those who have decided to carry out physical criticism and not remain in obscurity. For those who mock, who enjoy, and who are passionate for explosives and arson. For the bomb threats where hundreds need to be evacuated. For those who carry out bloody crimes and who leave wounded victims. For those who instinctively thirst for destruction. For those who don’t get discouraged by failed attacks and who learn from their mistakes. For the anarchist terrorists, for the amoral, indiscriminate attackers. For the impertinent uncivilized murderers, for the serial pyromaniacs, for the anti-social people who use dynamite, for the criminals and thugs, for those who feel blood in their veins and act in fury and/or have fun at night demonstrating their disdain. For those who unwind themselves in uninhibited fashion during an attack."

Now that we have established what makes ecofash complete and utter garbage, let us dive deeper into their ideology. The above excerpts shed light on their basic principles, opposition to civilization, and deplorable tactics. The following excerpts will demonstrate their obsession over and fetishization of "primitive" cultures, and will explain why their views are utter fucking nonsense. I want to point out that I am not critiquing any of these indigenous societies; rather, I am including descriptions of them, taken from Atassa, in order to give background.

"Boys in Yanomami society, Clastres observes, are “encouraged to 

demonstrate their violence and aggression. Children play games that are 

often brutal. Parents avoid consoling them. The result of this pedagogy is that it forms warriors." The missionaries have failed utterly to dispel their love of violence. Guns given as gifts by the Salesians, with the stipulation that they be used for hunting and nothing else, are quickly integrated into the Yanomami war machine. “Try to convince warriors to renounce an easy victory’’ Clastres writes, ’’These are not saints." The presence of firearms of course makes it possible for larger scale massacres. Clastres points out, however, that it is common practice to invite a tribe to feast with the intention of slaughtering them all. Such acts are never forgotten and blood feuds are passed down through the generations. In a day with twenty-one hours of leisure time, there are ample opportunities to cultivate animosity for one’s enemies."

What follows is an anthropologist's thesis on the nature of warriors among "primitive" societies. While there is obviously nothing wrong with studying such cultures, and again, I am not criticizing these cultures, the mistake made by ecofash is the gross exaggeration, romanticizing, and fetishization of them.

"The thesis that Clastres is best known for is simple: the permanent state of war that one finds in most indigenous societies is a strategy, deliberately employed, to retain territorial segmentation and prevent the development of the State or monolithic culture. Tribal war resists globalization. Clastres: The war machine is the motor of the social machine: the primitive social being relies entirely on war, primitive society cannot survive without war. The more war there is, the less unification there is, and the best enemy of the State is war. Primitive society is society against the State in that it is society-for-war."

"No matter where we look among primitive communities we will find violence blazing forth like a torch in the dark night. For all the cultural variations and nuance, this one thing appears to be universal. The myth of the peaceful primitive is pernicious. As we will see below, part of the reason this myth exists in the first place is the absence of an understanding of what war means outside the context of our own stunted and repressed conceptions of violence. Clastres writes: "one image continuously emerged from the infinite diversity of cultures: that of the warrior.” What is the meaning of this figure? How do we explain or understand the universal love of war? What does it mean for our society to have turned its back on this primal force, to abandon it to be the work of robots or sterile corporate employees? We have lost "the spectacle of our free warlike vitality.” And it has been replaced by a most murderous and vile peace."

"In these texts Clastres refined his idea that warfare and torture were deliberately implemented by primitive communities to prevent the emergence of the state or other hegemonic powers and thus to prevent radical inequality. The violence imposed almost constantly on all members of society reminded everyone of their place: The law they come to know in pain is the law of primitive society, which says to everyone: You are worth no more than anyone else; you are worth no less than anyone else. The law, inscribed on bodies, expresses primitive society’s refusal to run the risk of division, the risk of a power separate from society itself, a power that would escape its control. Primitive law, cruelly taught, is a prohibition of inequality that each person will remember...The key point to be made about war in the tribal context is that it itself is a goal, it is a response to a need."

"This is the complexity of primitive society: there are enemies and there are allies. The former necessitates the latter. And these categories are always in flux: a community never launches into a war adventure without first protecting itself by means of diplomatic acts — parties, invitations — after which supposedly lasting alliances arc formed, but which must constantly be renewed, for betrayal is always possible, and often real. Such alliances are created and maintained primarily through the exchange of women, who are also accumulated as spoils of war. This paradox, the exchange of women in securing alliances and the capture of women in war, illustrates, for Clastres the disdain toward exchange economy. Why should we trade for women when we can simply go get some for ourselves: “the risk [of war] is considerable (injury, death), but so are the benefits: they are total, the women are free.” [Author's note: the dilemma of whether or not we - you, me, whoever is reading this - should impose our cultural values (in this case, in relation to the rights of women) on "primitive" societies is a very complicated question. I will not give an opinion at this time, but I will say that one of the many reasons I oppose a return to a "primitive" state of humanity is that it is very possible women would be reduced to little more than a commodity, a spoil of war, to be raped and thrown away. This is unacceptable.]

"War is a way of preserving the community.The cohesion, permanence, and stability of primitive life are all achieved through an unending state of war. This does not mean, of course, that we are always warring, but we are always at war, we are always about war, we always are war. The permanence of war in primitive society creates the image and idea of totality upon which all else depends. My identity is preserved through war. I am different because of war. I exist at all through war. To maintain the uniqueness and separation of identities and communities is not a byproduct of war, it is the purpose of war."

"While it is true that we can say that primitive man is by definition a warrior, it is no less true that not all men are equally called to their task. The core of the war-making men is made up of those who have become enflamed by their passion for blood and glory. These are men who have devoted themselves utterly to violence and the pursuit of honor. They exist for nothing else. Every man is a potential warrior but not everyone fulfills this destiny. Clastres puts it thus: "All men go to war from time to time...some men go to war constantly!' Clearly when a village is attacked, it can be assumed that all men will act as warriors. But it is this special class that must engage in warlike activities even in times of peace. They do not go to war to respond to the needs of others but because they hear the drum beating at all times within their breast."

"As we have established, war functions in primitive society as a way to preserve autonomy and prevent the accumulation of political power and the growth of the state. The role of the warrior is to make war. And the warrior is the man who has passion for war. But what is the source of this passion? Simply put, the warrior’s passion for war stems from his desperate, wild hunger for prestige, honor, and glory. This fact helps us understand the existential dimensions of the act of warring. The warrior can only realize himself if society confers meaning upon him. Prestige is the content of this meaning. The community awards prestige to the warrior in exchange for accomplishing specific exploits, which as we have seen in turn increases the prestige and honor of the community as a whole. The calculus of prestige is determined by society and it may be that certain war-acts are considered imprudent and thus no prestige is granted. It is perhaps needless to say that heredity or lineage bears no prestige. In other words, nobility cannot be inherited; glory can only be attained by the hand of the man who seeks it; it is nontransferable."

The rest of this particular essay goes on to explain how in many "primitive" societies, war is pursued not as it is in the rest of the world, that is, for economic, social, religious, etc. reasons; rather, "primitive" societies conduct war for the simple pursuit of glory and bloodlust. Warriors scalp their enemies and bring them back to their village as trophies, gaining them status within their community. This warrior culture, however, is self-destructive, as simply retrieving scalps will not garner a warrior respect forever. Warriors must pursue riskier and riskier feats in combat; one such display of bravery is entering an enemy camp at night and slaughtering as many warriors as possible before fleeing. Each act of bravery garners a warrior more and more respect, but every such display is inevitably a more deadly venture than the last. It is quite the deadly pursuit. My main objection to this type of society is not that it is inherently wrong; rather, I have no desire to have that lifestyle imposed on me. If other people want to "return to their primal nature" and live a life of tribal warfare, that's fine, but unlike the ecofash who idolize and worship "primitive" cultures, I have no desire to destroy civilization and force this lifestyle on an unwilling populace.

Why Wild Nature is Appealing

I would now like to explain why the idea of primitivism is appealing to me. Rest assured, I do not at all agree with its ideas, and I will shortly make very clear why I reject it. And although I entirely reject the nihilistic, murderous ideology worshiped by ITS, I admit there is a certain allure to it. They whisper their temptations to me, and sometimes, they get through. There's something enchanting about the primitivist vision of the future, of being free from the shackles of the factories and the streets and the subways and the pollution and the banks and the bills and the computers and the pollution and noise. There's a certain charm to living the primitive life: living one with nature in the wild, being one with the trees, the rivers, the sky.

It's beautiful.

But I can't bring myself to do it.

I can't give up this life, all this technology, medicine, internet, infrastructure, satellites, electric ovens, rock music, fast cars, good games, good food, good porn. I just can't give it all up. I cannot allow myself to face the conclusion that civilization itself is killing us. It might be true, I don't know, but I cannot allow myself to realize it. The implications would shatter my mind. 

At the end of the day, no matter how much it pains me, I must reject anti-civ. Thankfully, I have no hesitation in denouncing the total perversion of anti-civ that is ITS. The one good thing about them is that they are pathetically weak. They have maybe a couple dozen members worldwide in isolated cells who are never going to accomplish anything at all. Their actions have alienated them from any base of support, and their flame will soon die out. They defile the cause of fighting for our Earth. I hope they fucking suffer.

Paradise is a lie if we have to burn you at the stake to get inside

You cannot control what is Wild!

Read my crap

First post on my dumb blog, yay!

Not sure what to say...maybe I should start with my philosophy?

Ugh, I hate that term, "philosophy". To me, philosophy is almost completely irrelevant. I don't need to study hundreds of pages of abstract theory written by some old white guys hundreds of years ago. I certainly don't need to waste time on that when I can already plainly see what's wrong with the world. That brings me to my next point - C O M M U N I S M ! ! ! oOoOoOoOoO spooky commies comin to take your xbox, oh no! But to be serious now, the different things you've heard about communism will have varied greatly depending on who you heard them from.

I don't know what you, the reader, are, in terms of political belief. If you're curious about mine, I can present to you terms to research - although if you're seriously interested in communist theory, I have plenty of other reading recommendations for later. Anyway, I am a Libertarian Marxist, which means I agree with the theories of Karl Marx. The "Libertarian" part of the label means I put emphasis on the anti-authoritarian, humanist aspects of Marx's theory. If you're not already acquainted with socialist terminology, then you may be surprised to learn that in leftist circles, "libertarian" does not mean the anti-government, conservative ideology found in the United States - in fact, the word "libertarian" was originally used by many schools of anti-authoritarian anarchist and socialist thought. So when I call myself a Libertarian Marxist, keep in mind that I am not referring to the conservative movement's co-opting of the term. Anyway, I agree most with Libertarian Marxism because I don't particularly like any later interpretations of and additions to it. I'll make another post about this eventually, but if you want a much longer explanation of my theories, I've written a little piece, which can be found here https://justpaste.it/1grdo

The rest of my posts will assume you're already familiar with leftism, so if you're looking for an introduction blog, this probably isn't the best place to learn. But, if you think it's interesting, then keep on the lookout for new posts.

Long live the Revolution!