Is Nicolas Walter's "About Anarchism" the Anarchist equivalent to Marx & Engels' "The Communist Manifesto"?
Recently came into a copy. I've read critics say that Walter's book is an essential, if not THE essential, marque of modern Anarchist ideology.
>pic related
what version of anarchy is wanting to eradicate all human systems? not anarcho privitism because that's about returning to a life in tune with nature which isn't the same thing
OP here.
In fairness, this book lends all (well, most - published in 1971) Anarchist ideologies, but focuses mostly on Active (Militant) Anarchism & Ideological Anarchism. It also explains the differences between the two schools of thought.
I am personally very much interested in Anarchism, not in the explicit sense, but how it can be applied to contemporary models of government.
No. Bakunin's essays would probably be closer.
The manifesto isn't the essential marque of anything though.
about 2000 today, on average maybe 800
What?
I understand that a Manifesto from any age isn't worth shit in any time that post-dates it.
However, I compared it to The Communist Manifesto (such is also essentially outdated) in its essence as a nominal piece of political literature.
I wrote an outline for a treatise on the philosophy of history. Don't get bogged down on my use of pre-defined terms, they're placeholders that roughly estimate the meaning I'm trying to define.
The Ubermensch
A being whose actions and existence are a manifestation of internal ideals.
The ideals need not be created by the Ubermensch. The important quality of the ubermensch is his indomitable will, his complete and utter commitment to his own ideals.
The Ubermensch can exist as an isolated individual. He need not be a 'great man' like Napoleon, Caesar, or Alexander.
The 'great man' ubermensch arises when an individual ubermensch unlocks, or exists within, the Cultural energy of an unstable civilization. Ie. Napoleon existed within a time period that was full of change and uncertainty; where the historically justified Relations of Production (Marx) were being destroyed. Napoleon himself was an Ubermensch, he possessed an indomitable will- but he did not create the circumstances of his ascension. The time was ripe, the culture was a vacuum, and he filled it. Caesar, likewise, existed at a time when Rome had overcome all opponents, and had as a result turned against itself. A time when the nobility had eschewed historical political structures (Marian reforms, Sulla's dictatorship). Caesar, like Napoleon, possessed an indomitable will, was an ubermensch, but he RODE THE CULTURAL ANGST/ LATENT ENERGY/ FILLED THE VACUUM OF LEGITIMACY.
You're just quoting Nietzschean philosophy!
That MAY be answer to Anarchism, but is in now way am answer to my question!
Both of these are on the wrong board
*no
Fuck off to /pol/ you Nietzschean dick
Posted this on the wrong board, I fucked up my tabs.
As far as Anarchism is concerned, its impossible. If all centralized authority were abolished, geographic areas with large amounts of resources would accrue excess population and create a unique culture, and eventually attempt to exert authority on larger swaths of land to further increase reproduction and impose their cultural will. Anarchy is a dream, the metaphysical churnings of reality couldn't sustain such a vacuum
>Is Nicolas Walter's "About Anarchism" the Anarchist equivalent to Marx & Engels' "The Communist Manifesto"?
Is it an oversimplified pamphlet?
Is reading Nietzsche enough to make one /pol/?
Seems like the qualifications are expanding by leaps and bounds.
Not at all, no. I have read Nietzsche, add be appreciate a lot of his ideas. However, I do not agree with his übermensch/üntermensch theory - to me, that is an archaic ideology, which (in my eyes) has been totally disproven by modern psychological & psychoanalytical thought (especially Lacan & Zizek).
> Zizek
How is it impossible?? That's a hegemonic notion that is implanted in most people' minds. However, I do agree that is completely infeasible in modern society, because of the status quo that already exists. Humanity has convinced itself that "man is a selfish being", and and all we have be to go on to maintain that hegemony is our propagandist history.
Call me a Marxist, I don't care. It's truth. History is a gas falsified document to uphold the so-called normality of human nature. If our predecessors write that Humanity came from Neptune, we'd believe it just as blindly - as it is written! Like the Holy Bible.
I don't know and don't really care.
Any form of anarchism fails as soon as you get invaded by a country that doesn't use anarchism.
>Oh look, it's Veeky Forums
>"Reddit is a hivemind"
>The collective of Veeky Forums > "Zizek is a duck"
Fucking idiots
Yes, actually when you put it like that - it makes sense.
It's ideology is sound, but in our globalised World, it wouldn't work.
Hegemony itself is not a refutation.
I agree with you that much of history is propaganda in service to the status quo, but there must be a rational origin to why the status quo is the way it is.
I'm curious how you think the nationalistic and tribalistic nature of human organization, which extends back thousands if not tens of thousands of years, came to be. Or why it came to be. If man was capable of a Utopian society of cooperation and non-violence, why would he choose fear and self-interest?
Human nature can answer that. Man was forged by natural selection into a self interested creature, whose own survival and reproduction took precedence over others. Morality and group preference arose because the evolutionary path of tribal warfare, held together by innate in-group preference, was far more effective than being a lone wolf.
So why, and how, did man choose violence and hierarchy over utopian equality if it was not an evolutionary legacy?
Anarchist reading list. Let's go!