Category Archives: bourgeois-state-capitalism

Art in a changing climate

A refugee is someone who survived and who can create the future.

Amela Koluder

Climate change does not respect border; it does not respect who you are — rich and poor, small and big. Therefore, this is what we call ‘global challenges,’ which require global solidarity.

Ban Ki-moon

There are myriad reasons why people set down roots along the Oregon Coast: “the ocean,” “the air,” “the laid-back lifestyle,” “the small town feel of the towns,” “no rat race,” “the geological and ecological beauty.”

For others, like First Nations cultures (Coastal Salish), or Nehalem, their roots were set down thousands of years ago, tied to land, sky, forest and the power of place.

Now, enter the term “envirogee” — derived from both “environment” and “refugee” — a displaced individual who has been forced to migrate because of environmental devastation. Some call themselves “climate refugees.”

191220_oct_Anja Albosta IMG_6788.jpg

For Anja Albosta, and her spouse, Mark, relocating to Waldport is much more than a geographic upheaval.

In 2018 my husband and I left our home in the Yosemite area due to drought, the die-off of millions of ponderosa pines and fire evacuations three years running. The last year driving out through flames on both sides of the road. We then relocated to the beautiful coast of Oregon.

I’m in their nice home overlooking Alsea during the slack tide. Sand bars ripple under the big bridge joining two portions of the coastline over the precarious sand spits and intertidal zone that make this both a dramatic place to live, and precarious (think ocean surge vis-à-vis a tsunami).

They spent time researching places, using a climate change or global warming lens as part of their search. For them, the last time fires hit their neck of the woods, North Fork (31 miles from the south entrance to Yosemite National Park), they had all their important papers in containers as they evacuated.

The hardy Ponderosa pines in their former ecosystem were dropping like flies — creating a huge tinder box for tens of thousands of acres, putting home, roads and human and animal life in danger.

To be more specific — There are two and a half million dead trees within the 131,000-acre national park. Dead trees are a natural occurrence, but the higher number of dead ones now are attributed to warmer temperatures, drying periods, pine bark beetles. Climate has changed dramatically.

For Mark and Anja, after 20 years living in the area, they have the long view of how that ecosystem is degrading and at risk due to the results of climate change.

Enter the Beachhead of the Siuslaw National Forest

I met Anja a few months ago at Pacific Sourdough, where she had been working for around five months staffing the front counter and now also making some of those yeasty delicacies for which the Waldport bakery is known.

My SOP is learning about the various communities on the coast and digging deep into people’s lives quickly since I have been on the Central Oregon Coast barely one year. Big mouth, big heart, big ideas: I go head-first into this life with my background in radical politics, radical education, radical sustainability and journalism. I like people.

Not all my subjects are in line with my radical (rooted) politics or my deep systems thinking (the colluding negative forces of consumption/war/financialization/oppression/cultural genocide/environmental destruction/capitalism) approach to why things are a mess for not just the USA, but more importantly for the oppressed — second and third world (pejoratives by first worlders, but radically important descriptors to revolutionaries).

It was clear to me both the owner of the bakery, Katie, and the artist, Anja, were willing to riff about plastics in the ocean, acidification of the Pacific and the ragged state of American governance. In the end, though, Anja is a believer in America and Western Culture, whereas I know that America (North America) and Western Culture are pathogens against all sanity and sustainable cultures and lives and communities.

Note that this piece first appeared in the lifestyle rag, Oregon Coast Today, a gig for which I gain a few shekels for these feature columns — Deep Dive • Go beneath the surface with Paul Haeder

We swapped cards, and Anja’s piqued my interest — she’s an artist with a background in interior design. Artist-plus-envirogee- plus-world traveler makes for good fodder for my people profiles.

191220_oct_Sargassum by Anja Albost.jpg

Tranquility (sort of) in their hillside house overlooking the Pacific

I’m in the house Mark and Anja bought from the proceeds of selling their self-designed custom-built airy home with two-story view windows (eventually, a view made up of gray, brown charred trees) sited at the edge of the Yosemite National Park, which was made famous by photographer Ansel Adams, President Teddy Roosevelt and John Muir, father of the Sierra Club.

She tells me Mark’s carpentry skills and both of their sweat equity turned the outdated and dysfunctional home into a wide-open floor plan with amazing built-in shelves and classy handmade doors and frames, as well as a new kitchen.

Anja’s paintings not only adorn all the walls — even the laundry room has three large acrylics hanging next above the laundry items — but she has many leaning up on walls that serve as a dining area a-la-painting studio.

Art for Art’s Sake

Anja’s youthful years include growing up in Germany and Switzerland, then Santa Barbara. She ended up back in Switzerland as an interior designer. “I had a fancy job, money, two months off each year for a vacation. But I wasn’t being fulfilled.”

That life changed when she was in her early 30s, propelling her to Yosemite for some outdoor adventure. She met Mark, who was rock climbing and asked Anja if she wanted to try her hand at climbing escarpments and the famous Half Dome.

Most of the rock now exposed in the park is granitic, having been formed 210 to 80 million years ago as igneous diapirs six miles below the surface. “Tis-sa-ack,” an Ahwahnechee phrase for Cleft Rock, is Half Dome’s pre-white man name.

She tells me that “coming to Yosemite changed my life.” In more ways than just her marital status, that is clear. Mark was a mountaineering guide in the park, and Anja threw in hard and fast as a painter while working 40 miles away in Fresno as an interior designer for clients who demanded style, panache and quality craftsmanship.

Her art from the Yosemite years is up in their house — broad horizons, silhouetted landscapes, with those rock features that Yosemite is known for. She tells me that much of the oil and water color creations ran parallel with the work she did as an interior designer — paintings that “went well” with various home settings.

On her website, her work is categorized as such — design; commissions and commercial art; watercolors, oils; mixed media.

For people living on the Coast, and others in our “green” Cascadia-Pacific Northwest, her latest evolution in her work really puts tread to the pavement when it comes to “statement art”:

From 2016 to the present, her art “has revolved around ‘balance’ and ‘the passing of time.’” Her art cuts into new emotional and societal space, for both the viewer and artist herself, reflecting her 52-years on Earth as an artist in transition. Succinctly, we might say she is looking for deeper meaning, a sense of purpose and creative inspiration — “climate, politics, religion, my own life.”

Climate Fight Should be Fight Again Capitalism

I go way back to the 1970s fighting against Sonora desert razing and scraping, against the shrimp bottom trawlers in the Sea of Cortez and the reckless, cyanide-laced explosive bait for such vermin as coyotes, puma, kit foxes, coatimundi.

I understand the long-view of how decimated the environment has become, due to rapacious capitalism and consumerism addiction. I never had much hope for humanity.

Anja sees the world from several lenses — one is hopeful as she plumbs the ideas of someone like Steven Pinker (psychologist, author of The Better Angles of Our Nature). The other lens is tied to youth and purpose, possibly hope, in the form of Swedish activist Greta Thurnberg. That third eye, so to speak, is occluded with darkness and impending catastrophe as Anja holds close to the research and writing of Elizabeth Kolbert (author of The Sixth Extinction and Field Notes from a Catastrophe, as well as Cataclysm Has Arrived: Man’s Inhumanity to Nature).

Anja galvanizes herself into that rarefied arena of being obsessed with painting —

I am an artist. I think at some point in my life I got to a place where it isn’t a choice for me. It is what I am and do.

That obsession isn’t without pitfalls, of which Anja is completely aware — tough to make a living selling paintings without a huge marketing push, and possibly a huge West Coast (LA, SF) or East Coast (NY, Boston) presence.

“I have other degrees [she tells me she is a self-taught artist from way back, in her teens] but at the end of the day I would paint.” For her, there are a thousand paintings in her head. She’s always thinking about images and color.

“I believe things are better. Women have the vote all over the world. Religion is shrinking. People are up in arms about this new attack on women’s reproductive rights, Planned Parenthood. We have all this gender awareness.”

Mixing Oils with Politics

Many in my artistic field — fiction — believe story has to flow from the common dramas of human compunction. I have had arguments with some telling me it is verboten to insert politics or a spin of political positioning in fiction.

We all have these universal stories set as conflicts, a sort of heuristic that defines how stories have always been told: man (woman) against self; man (woman) against man (woman); man/woman against culture/society; man/woman against god/religion; man/woman against nature.

For me, I add man/woman against science; and then, this new one, man/woman against Artificial Intelligence.

Interestingly, the climate change debate is political, psychological, cultural, economic, environmental and spiritual. For many now, like Greta, a collective trauma has set in. Many in my camp, however, have always questioned the fascist aspects of Capitalism holding sway over our personal, cultural, environmental lives. My cadre are also worried about climate fascism on all sides — a white Swedish teen — Greta with her Hulu special, Time magazine person of the year award, and fawning — lecturing the world on her idea of what should and should not be done in regards to climate we rebuff.

Anja sees the world in a type of collective cognitive dissonance. Anja understands that she comes from that privileged global group — white middle class American. She says she constantly thinks about how much pain and suffering will unfold in countries with less resources, less wealth and who are positioned on the front lines of extreme climate change effects.

Truly, though, when I look at Anja’s art, I see that vision of one woman who has traveled the planet emotionally, philosophically, creatively and intellectually. The art is influenced by artists such as Frida Kahlo and Georgia O’Keefe. The recent mixed media drive she is exploring is both passion and obsession, fear and darkness. She goes through hundreds of magazines like New Yorker, National Geographic, Scientific American and others — and then starts cutting out images. Her canvases can be part black and white sketches of her own, swirls of vibrant colors, dark silhouettes of trees and then this collage treatment rendering images or words not always recognizable.

We the viewer have to provide context to what she is doing in each work.

Collage, montage, mixed media, found materials and objects she incorporates, and Anja’s work is in the same league as Kurt Schwitters and Hannah Höch.

Putting my thumb on her work stylistically is challenging. California-based collage artist Eugenia Loli has some of the same techniques, but Anja is a true painter, whose canvases blend the collage with hyper evocative colors and transformed shapes from nature.

A fellow like Alexis Rockman, who has been imbuing climate change in his art since 1994, is also somewhat in the same vein as Anja. For Rockman, he uses his position as an artist “to visualize these things that were very abstract and remote in terms of people’s life span and comprehension.”

Again, Anja’s art is in its own league, tied to very specific issues of our current political, cultural and environmental zeitgeist, and when she shows me each of her works, her explication is as potent as the imagery by itself.

We talk about how to get her work “out there” — possibly in libraries, schools, restaurants, rather than this shoe-string, consignment sort of kitschy and retread art world for which she is competing.

Timelessness and Timeliness

There is a real urgency, real or perceived, in the climate change debate. My cadre is worried more about poverty, resource theft, subjugation of entire countries and areas of the globe to this thuggery of parasitic or disaster capitalism.

In any case, Anja’s art is of “the now,” emerging in tandem with the 24/7 news and attention span cycles of modern Western culture.

She’s 52, and we live in a time where her art once she has passed on will not be eliciting some miracle of resurgent interest . . . or that hidden gem producing millions in sales the art world still vaunts.

The culture she lives and works in is tied to planned and perceived obsolescence, and her work is actually beautiful, evocative and infused with those hidden or obvious images from magazine cutouts. He technique is to blend and then push a seamlessness into the entire canvas, where the viewer sometimes can’t figure out where her dense but light-filled vine-like shapes end and the National Geographic image of the giraffes begin.

Each art piece is also galvanized to “the telling” of the piece: how and why Anja conjures up the shapes and creates architectonics while also pointing out the subtle placement of magazine clips. Each piece is a story upon a story, relaying a complex overlay of where we are at now in this country’s and in the globe’s history.

Her most recent piece, “Sargassum,” reflects this globe as water planet, and while the cover of Kolbert’s Pulitzer Prize winning book The Sixth Extinction is floating in the sea, with a tether like tentacle, this piece is vibrant, evocative and something any individual or business should consider for display.

We talk about getting those magnificent explanations she does so well down on paper, and then having a piece like Sargassum anchored by the text, giving this mixed media art-form yet another dimension — words. Or a poem . . . or song lyrics.

“Galapagos Monsters;” “Alice — Looking Through Time;” “Let Girls Learn;” “Acquiescent;” “Betrayed;” and other titles are just the tip of the melting iceberg in Anja Albosta’s work. Try her out by going to her website, and then place yourself in the story unfolding in a world that without any doubt is challenged more and more daily with those cascading issues of injustice toward child-man-woman-mountain-animal-sea-lake-jungle-air-soil.

Luckily, Anja’s spouse, Mark, was willing to cross that hallowed ground of personal space — husband-wife relationship — and that of the art observer-aficionado. Here’s his take on Anja’s artwork:

Paul Haeder: What do you like about Anja’s work?

Mark Albosta: Anja’s art operates on several levels simultaneously for me. On the surface, the visual impact (color choices, images, shapes etc.). Then it pulls me in deeper to understand what the message is she is conveying, and finally I have my own interpretation or lasting effect that stays with me.

PH:  What role do you think artists — both Anja and you, as a musician — have in their communities?

MA: I have observed and think artists shape communities by revealing and delivering concepts to people that are only arrived at by doing the work as an artist. Expressing from the inside outward instead of engaging in the world from the surface. That translates outward to the community.

PH: What surprises you about Anja’s work?

MA:  Her originality in every piece. She is never at a loss for new ideas.

PH:  Define her work — her style, her final products/creations.

MA: Question 1 answers much of this but I will try and elaborate. Her style to me is of a dichotomy. Elegance and chaos. It is always present, similar to the world around us. There is a tense correlation to society and nature in her art but it is still easy to appreciate/immerse myself into every piece. The end result is passion.


Time #9 ~ Do You Know What You Are? ~ 18x24 ~ 2019

Art in a Few Hundred Words

All’s fair in love and art when looking at the artwork and intellectual and creative ethos of Anja Albosta. Her goal is getting her artwork out there, so to speak, and we can see that at age 52, in terms of chronological time, Anja has many good and inspiring years left. For me as a writer, this story will be read in the newspaper (part one) and then some will pick it up in the ether, reading the full-length people profile on line.

Anja’s art, however, if placed into environments where people can contemplate it, look at it, and discuss the meta-cognitive value of what she is paining/saying, well, that might be ephemeral too, but many more could be inspired by her art to move into some place of understanding or healing.

I’ll let her words speak for her. Her website can lead interested people into an entire world of depth, whimsy, provocation and beauty.

Paul:  What would you say your life philosophy is in as many words as you care to express?

Anja:  Stay balanced in an ever-changing world. Express myself as myself as best I can with the awareness that we are all always influenced by the world around us.

Find enough down time in our busy world to integrate events within myself. Feel, see, be able to truly listen when needed, to nature around me, people, sift through news and events and be authentic.

PH: Postmodernism looks at busting out of grand theories and concepts of art. What would you call your art given many in and out of the art world seem to be interested in movements, styles, expressive ideology in the artist’s own words?

AA: My paintings at this time, perhaps since 2015/16 have become a ouroboros of sorts, events happen and I create, at the same time I create and see events differently because of it.

Not sure what to call my art; labels help put anything in context. Yet I am not trying to fit in nor trying to be especially innovative. My paintings are just that, my process, my expression at this moment of my life. “Process Painting” comes as close to a label as I can think of perhaps.

PH: This is a foundational question that maybe I didn’t ask in so many words: what does your art mean to you?

AA:  It helps me balance all the cognitive dissonance in my own life, the worlds, past childhood events. In some strange way my art is everything to me, and yet how can that be true, it is just paint and bits of paper on canvas.

If I had no artistic expression, I would be lost, but if I only had art, I would be very isolated and lonely.

PH: What role does the artist have in society?

AA: Many artists have been recorders of history. Otto Dix, Kandinsky, Toulouse- Lautrec, Kate Greenaway. Recording their emotions of an era as well as actual events.

Current art and so many artists bring people together, social gatherings, ideas, philosophizing over the human conundrum of our best and worst. Art, music, innovative food, creating depth for the heart and soul that corporate consumerism can’t.

PH: What do you like about your work?

AA: It always feels like my art is an adventure, brings me completely into the flow of the moment.

My art is interesting to me as I work on it, consumes me at times over the weeks or months the oils dry and the painting is ready for the next layer of depth and expression. My work is what I want to do with my time. But I struggle with it too, question myself, then I paint again, hours pass and time is lost.

PH:  Are you ever surprised by your work?

AA:  Yes. I am continually surprised by my paintings. Creativity is organic for me. I read books and articles, see images and process in the moment.

Integrating the cognitive dissonance in the world around me. Always I find I have brought together opposites. Life and death, beauty and destruction, now and the past, humans and animals. Light and dark. Politics, religion, human choices. Questions, always questions … not so many answers.


Capitalist Society Under the One Party of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum

The delay of the socialist revolution engenders the indubitable phenomena of barbarism — chronic unemployment, pauperization of the petty bourgeoisie, fascism, finally wars of extermination which do not open up any new road.

— Leon Trotsky, In Defense of Marxism

While the citizens of the rich world are protected from harm, the poor, the vulnerable and the hungry are exposed to the harsh reality of climate change in their everyday lives…. We are drifting into a world of ‘adaptation apartheid.

— South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, United Nations Human Development Report 2007-2008

That puking up barbarism phenomena in this enclave of genocide and perpetual war, resource theft and global toxification come in a coat of many colors. In the simplest terms I see it daily in my job as underpaid and spat upon social worker jiggering with the penury, punishment and putrefying systems of bureaucratic hell and legal rape exemplified in the schizophrenic American version of capitalism.

In no way am I ever NOT entertained by the magical thinking and retrograde beliefs of those I serve – homeless veterans who in some cases decry welfare for the masses while picking up their welfare checks and benefits from the Veterans Administration. On top of that, they feel entitled because they ended up in the economic draft of the US Military Industrial Complex. These are not the ones who saw “battle” overseas, but the ones who were snookered into thinking a tour here or there, in a non-combatant role would get them somewhere in life.

Broken people come to the military, and the military breaks them again, and, the gift that keeps on giving are the systems of oppression and criminalization of living life in Trump’s “MAGA, MAGA über alles, über alles in der Welt.”

Reality is that this thing called America, united snakes one in all, was running on that manifest destruction at the moment those Puritanical misanthropes ended up on the east coast with their fears, dark perversions, warped criminal religiosity and white DNA primed for a taking, eminent domain and killings far and wide.

On the one hand, my clients with mental strains beyond repair and hobbled with a truck-load of PTSD, and another container ship full of physical ailments believe their “service” was honorable, somehow divorced from the huge welfare trough that is the military-private contractor complex, and more so, suspended from the reality that their own kind — fellow soldiers ranging from the likes of a Private Gomer Pyle to Gen Schwarzkopf — screwed them in every which way possible inside the human frame of exploitation and downright pathological assault on every front.

Screwed them with shitty equipment, shittier intel, rampant rotten orders, and a million environmental assaults that have rendered millions of men and women who individually barely served a few years into the walking-wheelchaired-vegetative state wounded.

There have been a million battles and skirmishes that were set up as suicide assaults.

Then on the other hand, some of the clients who are self-declared  deplorables — who believe in Trump as something more than a rotten, lying, wimp of a man with his self-anointed Six Star General’s Bully Epaulets and Bone Spurs Yellow Streak Academy Jumpsuit — are not limited to a bunch of uneducated cretins, but also those who thought time served would be a touchstone in their lives.

Constantly, I have to wrestle with my clients’ reprobate ideas that anything about the government sucks and everything about private capital shines. It’s a reverse ideology of anti-Americanism: against teachers, against librarians, against the postman, against scientists and doctors and others from the so-called Great American Democracy as products of state schools, state governments, municipalities, and the like. They’ll root for these pathetic sports teams, both college and the pros, rendering stupid their concept of where those facilities are and where the billionaire owners get their sports gladiators.

Delusional, really, as my clients shudder with spiritual epiphany at those millionaire preachers like the Billy-Frank Graham Klan and hyper-millionaires running the retail show and all those attendant systems of destruction in the Big Pharma-Big Prison-Big Energy-Big Mining-Big Ag-Big Construction Complex they so often defend as the Defenders of Democracy in Private enterprise.

Here’s a common link to the duality of systems of oppression, that structural violence that leads communities and entire classes and races of people into more and more dungeons of despair and destruction:

One fellow, 62, homeless because the apartment management tossed him out as the maintenance man, with the free apartment in the mix. Out of a job and no longer making the dough to pay rent, he was forced to squat for a while before the iron jaws of the sheriff department came in and served him eviction papers.

Lapsed car insurance, lapsed driver’s license, and, alas, a speeding ticket in a school zone. And, now, 8 years later after eight years on the road and homeless, this little shithole town of King City has him in their vise for $1700. The original ticket was $700 with the add on’s of court fees, administrative costs and other highway robbery checks and balances. So, this fellow is in need of a driver’s license, but these cities have been colonized by those PRIVATIZERS – in this case some multi-millionaire outfit out of Gig Harbor, Washington, which takes on the collections. Imagine, we want to set up a payment plan, even though this fine has passed the statute of limitations. But the City of King City, OR, puts a hold on releasing licenses until every red-blooded Yankee cent is paid off.

We can only imagine what the cut is for this Little Eichmann outfit collecting fines from hundreds of cities, maybe thousands. The interest of a thousand bucks might be waived, but still, the $700 is probably only pennies on the dollar for the city as the Collection Agency (AKA mob in MBA clothing) racks up the largess of the original out of wack fine as profit running their boiler rooms of collection workers.

Punishment, boomerang retribution. Name one place and one job where a personal vehicle can easily be pushed aside as part of the work routine, discounted as a necessity of getting to and from work, or the fact that blue collar work never requires a driver’s license for using company vehicles. Right! A driver’s license is a right, not a privilege, in this bunkered society!

The great American rah-rah, fighting for one’s country, fighting for these evil punks like a Trump, just doesn’t cut it when the ex-soldiers start adding up the contradictions and outright lies of the elite class, which a Trump and his cronies signify and exemplify.

The core of these systems of pain and recurring punishment generates hate, fear, resentment, anger and violence – of the mind, violence of the soul and possible violence exacted on the innocents and not so innocents around them.

These characters I work with mostly never look at the concurrency of pathological serial shooters and these racist, homophobic anti-tolerance military experience, or how these synagogue attackers were subliminally and overtly recruited into the Armed Services with the true blue Yankee Doodle Dandy and Johnny Comes Marching Home Again glee perpetrated again by the neo-fascist army of Republicans and Trump Lagoon Monsters, all of which the Democrats simultaneously hide from and deal with.

Colonized With Hive and Mob Mentalities Simultaneously

I’ve signed permission passes (we force adults to sign and ask for permission to leave a homeless facility!) for overnight stays away from the shelter where I work for people who have brokered this idea of “anomie” into their very existence, a lack of meaningful and structuralized social life in return for Black Friday, the height of meaningless self-gratification at the expense of not only the planet but the faceless and nameless people charged with running this engine of Retailapithecus restlessness. As Émile Durkheim the sociologist stated, we are a modern culture where the individual follows an increasingly “restless movement, a planless self-development, an aim of living which has no criterion of value and in which happiness lies always in the future, and never in the present achievement.”

More and more of the clients I work with have as their end goal individualized happiness, their 40 acres and a mule dream, for me myself and I. They come from a hive of military brainwashing and propaganda, one where leaders are followed and hated at the same time, one where the broken system of war, empire, manifest destiny, nation invasions and nation building (sic) is their ultimate plan of self-gratification – I joined to protect the flag, our way of life and to protect our borders from savages and invaders. Except the borders, as anyone knowing the history of these here United Snakes of America, is all about Norte Americanos encroaching and breaking the borders of others.

As Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz states in the Boston Review:

Even during the Civil War, both the Union and Confederate armies continued to war against the nations of the Diné and Apache, the Cheyenne and the Dakota, inflicting hideous massacres upon civilians and forcing their relocations. Yet when considering the history of U.S. imperialism and militarism, few historians trace their genesis to this period of internal empire-building. They should. The origin of the United States in settler colonialism—as an empire born from the violent acquisition of indigenous lands and the ruthless devaluation of indigenous lives—lends the country unique characteristics that matter when considering questions of how to unhitch its future from its violent DNA.

So, when I speak to the veterans and their families I work with on this matter of America’s soul wrapped in the banner of decimating other peoples who were here first, there is bloviating, knee-jerk proclamations that the victors enjoy the spoils, and that there is a god-given right to the American (white) ideal of moving the world toward His image.

This calculus I deploy for the homeless, those who have been screwed-blued-and-tattooed by the systems of oppression, by those debt collectors, those police and sheriff departments, by the judges and lawyers, top and bottom feeders all: I remind them that the so-called victors in their America are the One percent, including cretins from Hollywood, all the way to former generals/lobbyists/ contractors, and to include their sacred religious snake oil men like Graham. I remind them the wars they maybe have participated in were wars of oppression and wars of profits, completely tied to the ideals of screwing and stealing from your neighbor. That karmic doozy comes boomeranging back in the form of the victors on Wall Street, in the Boardrooms, and at the corporate tables of the Military-Pharma-Med-Prison-Education-Real Estate-Chemical-IT-Retail Complex. These too are the American ideals they supposedly signed up to protect with their lives in someone else’s country.

Again, what are we fighting for, sir?

This country’s leaders have always been Bill-Barak-Donald; Bezos-Adelson-Walton; CNN-FOX-Breitbart. “Money talks and money rules” is not some new Mar-a-Lago printed saying on Trump Condoms! As I continually told my 32-year military veteran father, his “work” in Korea, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Japan, et al was work for-by-and-because of the elites, the ones making two-bit Tin Soldiers jump through burning buildings and forced marches up another Pork Chop-Hamburger-Gizzard Hill. Marching orders by these bastions of money power and debt dread have been the history of these Un-united States.

Of course, the soldiers who are of color rarely jump on this Sherman Tank towed “bandwagon,” but to be sure, we talk about their own dire circumstances enveloped in the same sort of so-called “The Victors Enjoying the Spoils” mentality. The spoils include a complete but suppressed history of theft, lynchings, treaty breaking, incarcerations, land despoilments, eminent domain.

Black men and women fighting against black men and women from their mothership — Africa. AFRICOM. Imagine, a Black Alliance for Peace, and a movement to stop US military involvement in Africa, and again these disruptions of the narrative of white supremacy get flummoxed, and the irony of brown and black and red soldiers fighting for what, who knows, but definitely part of the system of oppression of their own people.

So, again, I go for the jugular, the fact that my old man and I argued much about the military’s legitimacy while on the same hand he agreed in my pursuit of journalism, writing, teaching, and education:

Not only does there need to be a mass movement in the U.S. to shut down AFRICOM, this mass movement needs to become inseparably bound with the movement that has swept this country to end murderous police brutality against Black and Brown people. The whole world must begin to see AFRICOM and the militarization of police departments as counterparts.

 Netfa Freeman, of Pan-African Community Action (PACA) and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). Freeman represents PACA, a BAP member organization, on BAP’s Coordinating Committee.

It cost $267 million to fund AFRICOM in 2018. Probably a lot more in dark money and secret budgets; let alone the billions coming from the Economic Hit Men:

That money is stolen from Africans/Black people in the U.S. to terrorize and steal resources from our sisters and brothers on the African continent. Instead, that money should be put toward meeting our human needs in the U.S. and toward reparations for people in every African nation affected by U.S. imperialism.

—  Vanessa Beck, BAP research team lead and Coordinating Committee member.

So, them’s fighting words, as the white damaged veterans reach for words, epithets, rejoinders, and false dichotomies in the form of, Might Makes Right. There is a greater good in what us mere mortals see. Money Talks, of course, as many of them believe this irreligious, woman thumper, chubby bully, inconceivably smut-riddled man is THEIR commander in chief.

This ground truthing isn’t a hot commodity on the lefty or progressive or socialist web sites, for sure, where their own respective tidy thinking is vaunted over messy shit coming from the mouths of people scratching for a living doing this dirty work of counseling assuredly lost, wounded, broken and in many cases, mean as cuss souls.

That 35,000-foot Noam Chomsky view is heralded over the gutter view, and it’s no deep search for meaning to understand the hive and the mob mentality colonizing those Democratic Socialists of America folk, those pro-Israel-at-any-cost Bernie folk, those Pried from My Cold Dead Hand NRA folk. You got the Godfather Cuomo in Albany getting some robed lion of repression judge to legally change his name to Mario Amazon Direct Cuomo, with all the dildos and vibrators free for life!

Trump or Biden, Adelson or Soros, Chris Wallace or Rachel Maddow, Daryl Hannah or Caitlyn Jenner. Charmin or Cottenelle. Coke or Pepsi. Prozac or Zoloft. Raytheon or Northrup Grumman. Mad dog Mattis or Old Blood and Guts Patton. Steelers or Florida State. A Star is Born or Bohemian Rhapsody.

The trenches are rarely delineated or written about, just these huge “investigative research white papers” on the power of the elite to powerfully corrupt all systems that were supposed to be set up to help-aid-assist-protect-empower-develop we the people’s communities. However, there are no more communities, just chaos (controlled chaos), disruptive technologies-economies-structural systems of repressions. Just Madison Avenue, Just Manufactured Narratives, Just Fallen Anti-Heroes, Just Entertainment.

Feeding the dopamine hits as the marketers of disaster-demented-demolition capitalism control all markets, all psychologies, all media, all armies.

The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same forms of mental pathology does not make these people sane.

— Eric Fromm, The Sane Society

The Post-Modern Anarchist Revolution

Part 1

Because post-modernism does not go far enough, because post-modernism has not reached the zenith and apex of its critique and programme due to the fact it has been divorced from its motor force, anarchism, revolution/insurrection is unavoidable. In fact, post-modernism demands it.  It demands the total realization of anarchism, that is, its own essence. Post-modernism demands the full-maturation of its inherent principles, radical equality, radical plurality and the total demolition of all meta-narratives. Its only recourse is post-modern anarchist revolution.

In contrast, the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism impedes post-modern growth and post-modern development at every turn. And, bourgeois-capitalism refuses to secede its rule and its dominion to intelligence and the future, calmly and quietly. As a result, revolution is unavoidable and a must. The revolution is a post-modern anarchist revolution. Namely, a revolution organized to overthrow all the lasting meta-narratives of the Enlightenment, specifically, bourgeois-capitalism. The objective of the post-modern anarchist revolution is nothing less than radical plurality, radical equality, and radical pragmatic-egalitarianism in all its shapes and forms.

Nothing must be left unchanged. The post-modern anarchist revolution shall reach its logical conclusion, only when anarchist demolitionism rids the earth of the Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, including the state-finance-corporate-aristocracy built and sustained upon it.

Paraphrasing Karl Marx that “the capitalist mode of production…begets, with the inexorability of a natural process, its own negation, [wherefore]…the development of …industry…cuts from under its feet [its] very foundation”1 According to Nikolai Bukharin, revolutions emanate from the antagonism between the forces of production and the relations of production, inside the dominant mode of production of an epoch. As Bukharin states:

The cause of revolution, of a violent transition from one type [of society] to another, must be sought in a conflict proceeding between the productive forces, and their growth, on the one hand, and…the production relations on the other hand.2

In essence, it is the radical disconnect between the productive forces of a society and its production relations, inside a dominant mode of production, which, if not rectified, eventually results in the violent overthrow of society; that is, the violent overthrow of the current, dominant, socio-economic framework of a society.

Specifically, according to both Marx and Bukharin, this is exactly what happened with the rise of bourgeois-capitalism and the capitalist mode of production on the back of the feudalist mode of production. However, whereas, Bukharin argues that revolutions are due to the productive forces having outgrown the envelope of production relations for post-modern anarchism, it is the other way around. It is the networks of production relations which outgrow the productive forces and, in effect, begin to press heavily upon the productive forces so as to make them evolve or perish. New relations of production require new organizational forms of production; i.e., new configurations of productive forces. In essence, new networks of relations embody new sets of requirements. And, this demand for new requirements places undue pressure upon the forces of production. They must meet these new requirements through reorganization or perish.

For Bukharin and Marx, “the evolution of the production relations is conditioned by the movement of the productive forces”3, while, for post-modern anarchism, it is vice versa. It is the evolution of the productive forces that is conditioned by the movement of the relations of production. Namely, demand determines supply, consumption determines production. Therefore, contrary to Bukharin and Marx, it is the new requirements of the relations of production which stimulate the technological evolution of the productive forces. And, when the productive forces cannot evolve to accommodate the new parameters and expansions of the relations of production, revolution, catastrophe, and crisis ensues in order to re-configure the sum of the productive forces along a new set of relations, a new mode of production. It is relations which inevitably drag the forces of production into the future.

Indeed, in a rare slip, Bukharin acknowledges the supremacy of socio-economic relations over the productive forces when he states:

It is upon the production relations of cooperation [and equality], maturing in the womb of capitalist production relations, in general, that the temple of the future will rest”.4

Meaning, it is the relations of production, not the productive forces, which is the bedrock for any revolutionary change.

Contrary to Bukharin, according to post-modern anarchism, productive forces only buttress socio-economic relations, they do not determine their form and content. The productive forces mirror and reflect the relations of production.  It is the relations of production which constantly bring forth new forces of production so as to maintain and perpetuate themselves, not the other way around as Marx and Bukharin would have us believe. As a result, revolutions stem from the active side of the antagonism between the forces of production and the relations of production, inside a dominant mode of production. In short, it is the living and dynamic relations of production that instigate revolution, not the dead and static productive forces of capital.

Contradicting his own notion of the supremacy of the productive forces over the relations of production, Bukharin even states “revolutions [always] begin… with ideology [and end with] technical revolutions, a sort of reverse order, as it were,”5 where, in the final analysis, relations of production are deemed superior to the productive forces in the sense that it is always the relations of production which lead the way into the future. Therefore, according to post-modern anarchism, it is the dynamic socio-economic relationships, which interweave the social fabric and exert command over the forces of production, which instigate revolution, not the forces of production. The revolution of the relations of production precede the revolution of the forces of production, not vice versa.

Revolutions begin in, and across, the relations of production and end with the re-arrangement and transformation of the forces of production, which are violently re-configured, or transformed, anew to service the newly established networks of productive relations, which have arisen prior, during, and after the revolution.

And, whenever conceptual and material acts of demolitionism transpire in large numbers in and across everyday life, socio-economic relations have developed new needs and new requirements. And, these new needs and requirements are pressing evermore upon the old organizational forms of the productive forces. In effect, the forces of production and their organizational forms have remained stagnant and, because of this, increasing acts of demolition have ensued. As a result, for post-modern anarchism, technological revolutions are founded on new relations of production, that is, socio-economic relations, demanding more evolved productive forces, which better align with the new requirements of these newly-minted relations. In short, technological revolutions do not precede new relations of production.  They develop and grow out of them so as to accommodate the new set of relational requirements. Demolitionism is a consequence of this conflict and these crises.

Following Bukharin’s notion that the initial step towards revolution “takes place when…objective evolution places the oppressed…in an intolerable situation…causing [the oppressed] to feel clearly that no improvement can be obtained under the existing order”6, a gestalt-switch is needed. In turn, post-modern anarchism stipulates that revolutions begin with disillusionment and nihilism; i.e., radical shifts in the relations of production, rather than radical shifts in the forces of production. As Bakunin states, the people “are made revolutionary by necessity, by the intolerable realities of their lives, their violent hatreds…[being] illegitimately diverted to support…the exploiters of labor,…the bourgeoisie”.7 Consequently, for post-modern anarchism, akin to Bukharin, it is intolerable situations, whatever these may be, arising from the networks of productive relations, which stimulate revolutionary change and acts of demolition.

Contrary to Bukharin, Marx and the communists, it is not the evolution of the productive forces which drive societies towards revolution, it is the evolution of the relations of production. It is outmoded and obsolete forces of production, which are made outmoded and obsolete by the arrival of new relations, new ways of connecting, arising out of the bustling daily-interactions of people, which drive societies towards revolution. It is not the forces of production. The reason is that productive forces are inanimate, passive and, in the end, their evolution is guided by the relations of production while, in contrast, the relations of production are animate and active, constantly bustling and buzzing with frenetic activity. It is the frenetic networks of relations which inadvertently prompt abrupt leaps and breaks with the old organizational framework of productive relations and forces of production. This is what sparks revolutions, demolitions and radical social change.

Indeed, from the perspective of post-modern anarchism, the initial catalyst to revolution is radical social change in the old networks of socio-economic relations, prompting radical change in the old networks of productive relations, which in turn, themselves, increasingly come to weigh heavily upon the old forces of production. The old mode of production either re-organizes itself and/or succumbs to bolder and bolder acts of demolitionism.

If the old forces of production are able to evolve and meet the new requirements of the newly, re-configured, socio-economic relations, then crisis is rectified and averted. If not, the new requirements of the newly, re-configured, socio-economic relations smash the old organizational form of the forces of production into irreparable pieces, resulting in systemic breakdown, revolution, demolition, and eventually, the re-configuration of society upon a new foundation, that is, a new mode of production. Namely, a new mode of production that is more conducive to the new burgeoning networks of socio-economic relations; i.e., the new relations which have thrown-off the old production relations, including their old organizational form.

In short, all evolutionary and revolutionary capacities lie within the evolutionary and revolutionary capabilities inherent in the networks of socio-economic relations. The litany of competitive dynamic interactions within the networks of socio-economic relations, either spearheads technological revolution and the continued stability of the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism; or instead, results in the demolition of the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism and the foundation upon which this meta-narrative is welded and bonded. If the bourgeois-capitalist mode of production is a vertical, centralized, homogeneous mode of production, which it is, then, in all likelihood, the post-modern, anarchist mode of production is, or shall be, a horizontal, decentralized, heterogeneous mode of production, that is, a set of multiple modes of production centred around autonomy, equality and heterogeneity, rather than bourgeois-capitalist unity, inequality and uniformity, namely, any omnipresent bourgeois herd-mediocrity.

Part II

According to Bukharin, over an extended period of time, it is inevitable that “production relations [become such an] emphatic…brake on the evolution of the productive forces that [both productive forces and production relations] simply must be broken up if society is to continue to develop”.8 And, if the productive forces, including the relations that direct these productive forces, are not burst asunder in order to accommodate the newly-minted socio-economic relations, then, according to Bukharin, “the entire society will become stagnant and retrogressive; i.e., it will enter upon a period of decay”.9 Such is the case with the Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism and the bourgeois-capitalist system. It is stagnant and retrogressive in nature and, thus, must be demolished and burst asunder as bourgeois herd-mediocrity reigns supreme, along with a degenerate, state-finance-corporate-aristocracy.

Essentially, the entire contemporary capitalist edifice and the bourgeois socio-economic landscape have descended into a stagnant, retrogressive period of decay, because the old socio-economic relations of bourgeois-capitalism, best exemplified in the ruling oligarchy, cling fanatically to the outmoded capitalist-mode of production. They cling to a set of socio-economic relations which, in fact, hinder socio-economic development, stifling growth and the advent of the post-modern/anarchist age.

Indeed, an outmoded capitalist mode of production, bent on continuing ad infinitum, invariably kills off anything, or anyone, which threatens its rule, even if this means killing off any possibility of socio-economic growth and/or development. Specifically, the senile capitalist-mode of production and its antiquated, state-finance-corporate-aristocracy, are resolved to stifle all new sets of burgeoning relations of production, which might be antithetical to the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism and its own existence.

Therefore, today, the objective of bourgeois-capitalism is to maintain the trajectory of socio-economic retrogression and decay, by any means necessary, since the outdated capitalist mode of production supports a small antiquated elite, whose survival is welded to the failing capitalist mode of production. In short, the senile capitalist mode of production supports a specific set of organizational relations over another subset of organizational relations, which threaten its rule. Consequently, the proponents of the outdated capitalist mode of production; i.e., the state-finance-corporate-aristocracy, deny with certain religious-fanaticism, the basic fact that western societies have entered into a period of terminal, socio-economic retrogression and decay.

In fact, the reality of this retrogression and decay is emphatically denied and passed-over in silence by the ruling institutions of the ruling relations of production. In contrast, such socio-economic retrogression and decay is passed-off onto the general-population as a form of socio-economic progress and development via elitist propagandist machines. That is, the empty-celebratory monologue of bourgeois-capitalism, droning on and on, ad nauseam, celebrating bourgeois-centrism as the most reasonable and the most revolutionary. In effect, today, the monologue of bourgeois-capitalism drones on and on throughout the capitalist mass media, about the glorious superiority of bourgeois-capitalism over all other forms of organization. Wherefore, to be reasonable is to be bourgeois and to be bourgeois is to be part of the capitalist vanguard, a dependable stern proponent of the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism.

Notwithstanding, according to Mikhail Bakunin, revolutions are a natural fact. They occur regardless of any controlled preparations undertaken by the ruling powers that reign over capitalist society. Indeed, states Bakunin:

Revolutions [are] a natural fact…[they do] not take place according to a preconceived plan but [are] produced by uncontrollable circumstances, which no individual, [or group] can [predict or] command.10

Therefore, similar to Marx’s claim that “crises can only be educed from…capitalist production, competition and credit”11 and, in the final analysis, are truly unpredictable.  For Bakunin, revolutions are as well an inescapable fact of the capitalist mode of production and bourgeois-capitalism, in general.

For, both Bakunin and Marx, “capital contains within itself the possibilities of [endless] interruptions”12 interruptions, which are in essence unpredictable, random, and at times, explosive. Consequently, a post-modern anarchist revolution is a revolution founded upon “local and spontaneous organization”13, an organization, which mirrors and reflects the seeming spontaneity and randomness of economic crisis. The post-modern anarchist revolution is in essence incessant interruption, without end or solution, culminating in the demolition of the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, namely, a total gestalt-switch and paradigm-shift.

Like Bakunin’s notion of revolution, the post-modern anarchist revolution is a revolution sparked by an intolerable situation, requiring nothing less than a total gestalt-switch and paradigm-shift, requesting:

freedom for all individuals as well as collective bodies, associations, communes, provinces, regions. [Such a revolution]…seeks the confirmation of…equality [for all] by [establishing] economic equality [for all]. [Of course,] this is not the removal of natural differences, but equality in the social rights of every individual from birth… [to] equal means of subsistence, support, education…and equal resources and [access to] facilities [for all].14

Therefore, the objective of any post-modern anarchist insurrection is to do away with all meta-narratives, specifically, the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, while establishing a series of anti-capitalist and post-capitalist institutions, which emphasize maximum equality, autonomy and heterogeneity. As a result, to quote Bakunin:

The post-modern anarchist revolution starts by destroying, above all, all…[bourgeois-capitalist] institutions and…[bourgeois-capitalist relationship] organizations [like] churches, parliaments, tribunals, administrations, banks, universities, etc., which constitute the lifeblood of the [bourgeois-capitalist] state. [The bourgeois-capitalist] state must be entirely demolished and declared bankrupt…[so] the people in the…[anarchist] communes [may collectively] confiscate…all state property [for themselves].15

To have a successful post-modern anarchist revolution, it is necessary to pragmatically demolish, both conceptually and materially, bourgeois-capitalist socio-economic conditions; i.e., capitalist forces of production and capitalist relations of production, in order to install a patchwork plurality of autonomous-collectives, narratives and worker-cooperatives.

Specifically, a successful post-modern anarchist revolution will demolish the concept of private property and the bourgeois-state so as to foster forms of communal organization that maximize equality, autonomy and heterogeneity. To quote Bakunin, the goal is to have a society where all micro-narratives have equal access to resources, in relative equal measure, whereupon no-one is privileged over anyone else and “workers take possession of all [forms of] capital and the tools of production”16, whether, these are conceptual tools and/or material tools. No meta-narrative must be allowed to have dominion over the plethora of micro-narratives, sharing the sum of capital, in relative equal measure.

In brief, the post-modern anarchist “revolution requires extensive and widespread destruction, a fecund and renovating destruction, since in this way, and only this way, are new worlds, [relations and productive forces] born”.17  The ultimate goal of any post-modern anarchist “revolution is the extirpation of the principle of [totalitarian] authority”.18 That is, it is the eradication and demolition of all despotic, overarching meta-narratives, specifically, the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism in favor of a horizontal-constellation of microscopic narratives, sharing the sum of socio-economic resources equally. Namely, a horizontal-constellation of micro-narratives which exercise decision-making-authority, among themselves, with relative equal force, devoid of any centralized, hierarchical, state-apparatus or meta-narrative.

In sum, any post-modern anarchist revolution, including any post-modern, anarchist, socio-economic formation, is a type of heterogeneous formation exercising power “from all points. [Whereupon, power does] not depend on a single directing center. [In effect,] the center [is] not…the source, but the product [of the periphery.] [It is] not the cause, but, the effect”19 of the peripheral, horizontal-constellation of micro-narratives. This set of peripheral micro-narratives, determining the political-economic center, are to be organized in a manner by which they can freely express their localized authority together, onto one another, in relative equal measure, where none is superior to another. The result is an equilibrium of force and power between a varying array of horizontally organized micro-narratives. These micro-narratives are to function and operate together, as a loose shifting federation or collective-patchwork, devoid of any overarching meta-narratives, specifically, the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism. They are to function and operate as an open-participatory-democracy.

All told, the post-modern anarchist revolution is perpetual. It is permanent. It is the demolition of meta-narratives, bourgeois-capitalism, without end. The post-modern anarchist revolution shall reach its end only when the earth trembles from end to end with the awesome power of demolitionism, that is, post-modern anarchism!

  1. Karl Marx, Capital (Volume One), Trans. Ben Fowkes, (London  Eng.: Penguin, 1990) pp. 929-930.
  2. Nikolai Bukharin, Historical Materialism: (A System of Sociology), (New York, New York: International Publishers, Martino Publishing, 1925) p. 249.
  3. Ibid, p. 244.
  4. Ibid, p. 253.
  5. Ibid, p. 262.
  6. Ibid, p. 256.
  7. Mikhail Bakunin, Bakunin On Anarchy, ed. Sam Dolgoff, (New York: Vintage Books, 1972) pp. 191-192.
  8. Nikolai Bukharin, Historical Materialism: (A System of Sociology), (New York, New York:      International Publishers, Martino Publishing, 1925) p. 249.
  9. Ibid, p. 249.
  10. Mikhail Bakunin, Bakunin On Anarchy, ed. Sam Dolgoff, (New York: Vintage Books, 1972), p. 357.
  11. Nikolai Bukharin, “Crisis Theory”, The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Robert C. Tucker (New York, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1978) p. 455.
  12. Ibid, p. 464.
  13. Mikhail Bakunin, Bakunin On Anarchy, ed. Sam Dolgoff, (New York: Vintage Books, 1972) p.180.
  14. Ibid, pp. 96-97.
  15. Ibid, p. 100.
  16. Ibid, p. 358.
  17. Ibid, p. 334.
  18. Ibid, p. 202.
  19. Ibid, p. 180.

Anarchism and Post-Modernism

Anarchism is the engine of post-modernism and post-modernism is the spirit of anarchism in the sense that both are the zenith and apex of radical social change, radical plurality, radical equality, and pragmatic-egalitarianism in its purest form. According to Errico Malatesta, anarchism “in common with socialism, has as its basis [and] point of departure…equality”1, just as post-modernism “is a social universe…formed by…plurality…[whereupon] all things [are in essence] equal”.2 For Lyotard, post-modernism “is an attitude that [is]…libertine or libertarian”3, meaning, it is a form of anarchism, a form of thought that is anarchistic in nature.  Consequently, anarchism and post-modernism are synonymous. Anarchism and post-modernism are synonymous in the sense that post-modernism is epistemological anarchism in thought-form; i.e., narrative-form, and anarchism is pragmatic post-modernism in active-form; i.e., methodological-form. Specifically, anarchism is post-modernism operating on the ground, working in and across the micro-recesses of everyday life, physically attempting to deconstruct the totalitarian unity of bourgeois-capitalism into a post-modern, socio-economic plurality. Finally, anarchism and post-modernism are synonymous in the sense that they have similar foundations; i.e., equality, plurality and a radical antipathy towards meta-narratives, including the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism.

First and foremost, anarchism is pragmatic-deconstruction, that is, the post-modern critique actualized in material-form, while post-modernism is the anarchist critique actualized in conceptual-form, both champion plurality, heterogeneity, and egalitarianism among all narratives. Anarchism is the methodology of post-modernism and post-modernism is the epistemology of anarchism, hence, why both are synonymous with each other; i.e., two sides of the same coin, two peas in the same pod, wherefore the goal for both is to “maximize as much as possible the multiplication of small narratives…[whereupon] none is privileged”.4

For both, anarchism and post-modernism, “all…positions are equivalent”5, which should equitably translate into what Proudhon refers to as “the necessary condition of [an] equality of fortunes”.6 For both anarchism and post-modernism an equality of positions means every narrative should be on an equal plane, wherefore none is more privileged than another. Simultaneously, for anarchism and post-modernism, an equality of positions means as well an equality of fortunes, wherefore no-one is legitimately more privileged than another in possessing a greater fortune than his or her neighbour. As Proudhon states, “society necessarily [implies] equality”7, while, “property is the negation of equality”8, that is, “property is anti-social”.9 Property negates society, it demonstrates that “property and society are utterly irreconcilable”.9 Ultimately, meaning, there is no legitimate basis for the inequality of fortune and property in the sense that all positions are equivalent and inherently equal in status, undermining any notion of legitimacy, pertaining to the unequal distribution of property and fortune.

In effect, the principle of equality underlying anarchism and post-modernism, reveals that all inequalities of property and fortune are illegitimate, unfounded and impeded socio-economic development. As Proudhon states, “the principle of equality kills…the principle of property”10, and “when property is widely distributed [via equality], society thrives [and]…when property is concentrated [via anti-equality], society abuses itself”.11 It is for this reason that Proudhon argues “property originates in violence”.12 For it cannot exist “without robbery and murder”13, due to the fact that property and fortune contradict the inherent principle of equality underlying existence, that is, socio-economic existence. Society suffers when property thrives too much. Consequently, there is no legitimate reason and/or logic for the existence of bourgeois-capitalism other than force, coercive force. As Proudhon articulates, “property rests first on war and conquest, then on treatise and agreements”.14. And since there is no real legitimate reason for the inequality of property and fortune other than violence and force, treatise and agreements serve only to legalize inequality, fortunes and robbery, which is exactly what anarchism and post-modernism have always implied with their radical critiques and analyses. Power decides not verity when, according to Lyotard, “all opinions are acceptable”.15

Notwithstanding, for both anarchism and post-modernism, decision-making-authority and the distribution of power should be guided by the maximization of plurality. According to Lyotard:

What we need today in order to make decisions cannot be the idea of totality, or of unity,…it can only be the idea of a multiplicity or a diversity. [Namely, to] always act in such a way that the maxim of your will may…not be erected…into a principle of universal legislation…[but] into a principle of… multiplicity.16

For Lyotard, it must be plurality that guides any decision-making-authority and any distribution of power in the sense that it must be the maxim of plurality which maximizes the greatest amount of plurality for all, rather than any notion of a despotic totality and/or unity. In similar fashion, according to anarchist, Errico Malastesta, pluralism is the guiding principle of any decision-making-authority and distribution of power in the sense that there is [no] one solution to…social problems, but a thousand different and changing solutions in the same way as social existence is different and varied [both] in time and space…Unanimity of thought and identical conditions are impossible [and]. . . in my opinion, undesirable.17

For Malastesta, unanimity of thought is undesirable because it tyrannizes over the necessity of plurality. For him, the necessary principle for “a network of needs and ideas which reciprocally give rise to and re-enforce one another”18 must be based on plurality rather than unity. The point for Malastesta is the creation of a plural “intelligent decentralization”19, wherefore, in effect, according to Lyotard, “a multiplicity of small narratives”20 is manifested, devoid of any overarching meta-narrative, specifically, the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism. The concept of plurality lies at the core of both anarchism and post-modernism as both are attempts to dissolve all forms of totalitarianism, both conceptual totalitarianism and material totalitarianism, into a socio-economic plurality of multiple nodes of power and decision-making-authority.

Likewise, for anarchist, Mikhail Bakunin, the objective of anarchism is to “create…[a] diversity of ideas, interests and aspirations”.21 The point of any form of anarchism is to create and “to embrace [an] infinite multiplicity and diversity of interests…[and] of needs”22, within the loose parameters of a post-capitalist, anarchist socio-economic formation. Similar to Lyotard and his notion that “there is no reference [, or norms,] by which to judge”23, Bakunin in a similar line of thought argues:

It is impossible to determine a concrete, universal…norm. The life of each…is subordinated to a plethora of different historical, geographical, and economic conditions, making it impossible to establish a model of organization [, both conceptual and/or material,] equally valid for all. Any such attempt would be absolutely impractical. It would smother the richness of… life which flourishes only in infinite diversity.24

In many ways, this is what anarchism and post-modernism are fighting for as they fight against the implementation of a unitary world-view; i.e., meta-narrative. The goal for both anarchism and post-modernism is to prevent the implementation of a unitary meta-narrative onto existence. Namely, a meta-narrative which eliminates or seriously curtails pluralist freedoms, by confining natural heterogeneity into a specific, highly-condensed, artificial meta-narrative and world-view, a meta-narrative and world-view, which denies the natural plurality of human existence, the fount of all freedoms. According to Michel Foucault, a world-view or meta-narrative, does nothing but “impose…the same norms and a certain structure of thought [upon society] that …men [and women]…cannot escape”25, which, in the end, negate, according to Bakunin, “diversity…and those differences [that]…constitute…the abundance of humanity”.26

In fact, this is what anarchism and post-modernism are attempting to override and overcome, both conceptually and materially, namely, the tyranny of any singular, overarching meta-narrative, which can impose an ironclad unified set of “homogeneous…regularities…[upon humanity; i.e., a totalizing] discursive formation”27, which can govern all the workings of micro-narratives, circulating in and across the stratums of everyday life. The point that the micro-narratives of anarchism and post-modernism are trying to make is that, through plurality and greater pragmatic-egalitarianism, inequality for all can be minimized, while freedom for all, in contrast, can be maximized in the sense that “freedom of each is…realizable only in the equality of all”.28. For Bakunin, “freedom and equality are impossible without social and economic equality”29 and the only way to achieve this is through the destruction of all meta-narratives, specifically, the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, both material and conceptual.

Like the radical antipathy that post-modernism expresses conceptually for meta-narratives, anarchism expresses a radical antipathy materially for meta-narratives. For both post-modernism and anarchism, bourgeois-capitalism “authority is the negation of freedom”30, which in turn, demands an unyielding incredulity towards any meta-authority, by demonstrating that “there is no [overarching] ontology”31; i.e., intrinsic principle, which can justify any such meta-authority and/or meta-narrative. For anarchism and post-modernism, “equality and…freedom…[are] incompatible with any and all [meta-narratives]”32, including the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism. Both anarchism and post-modernism demand a freedom capable of destroying all the dogmatic, metaphysical, political, and juridical fetters by which everyone today is loaded down, which will give everybody, collective as well as individual, full autonomy in their [narrative] activities and their [material] development, delivering one and…all from [the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism.33

For both anarchism and post-modernism, “the passion for destruction is a creative passion, too”34 in the sense that it liberates plurality from the despotic clutches of tyranny, the tyranny of meta-narratives. And, this passion stems from the fact that there is no overarching ontology by which to determine any universal truth and/or judgment by. As Lyotard states, “there is no place from which one [can understand] the whole”23 in the sense that “we are always within opinion”35  because there is no real ontology, or ground, upon which to fasten any universal truth and/or judgment upon. Therefore, no meta-narrative, whatsoever, is valid or capable of being a justified, all-encompassing totality. A meta-narrative always imposes its rule on another with certain coercive force whether this is soft or obdurate.

Subsequently, like anarchism, post-modernism argues that nothing is, in reality, legitimately privileged over another in the sense that like anarchism, post-modernism ascribes to Bakunin’s notion that “the freedom of other[s]….far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary its necessary condition and confirmation”.36. The freedom of other micro-narratives; i.e., the limits of their freedom, expresses and reflects the freedom of one’s own micro-narratives; i.e., the limits of one’s own freedom. And, when a meta-narrative encroaches on the freedom of another micro-narrative, it simultaneously encroaches on the freedom of all micro-narratives. As Bakunin states, “the oppression of one is the oppression of all, and we cannot violate the liberty of one…without violating the freedom of all”.37 And in a similar anarchist fashion, Lyotard states “who [or what] is right? It is up to everyone to decide”.38  It is not a matter of a select few imposing their will on the masses, which can only be unjust, but it is the masses who must decide for themselves what is right. Meaning, it is the sum of all micro-narratives, together which must decide not a meta-narrative. And, according to Lyotard, “what will be [deemed] just ultimately is that upon which people agree that it is just”.39 That is, “it is [only] the common opinion”40 of the masses, which can determine what equitable justice is and should be. Similarly, Bakunin states, “the only kind of justice that may have authority amongst us…can only be won by and founded upon the solidarity of [all] people [living] in [full] liberty”41, not by any cabal or class living high above the rest imposing a meta-narrative on the general-population.

All in all, it is in this regard that anarchism and post-modernism are synonymous in the sense that both is founded upon, and attempts to maximize, liberty, equality, justice and plurality for all micro-narratives, in relative equal measure while denying the validity and legitimacy of any overarching meta-narrative and/or world-view. Both argue that meta-narratives oppress and impose their will on the masses, denying them the full expression of plurality, liberty, equality and justice for all. Both anarchism and post-modernism comprehend and argue that freedom and equality is fundamentally linked and based, first and foremost, upon socio-economic equality in the sense that economic “equality [is] the indispensable precondition for all freedoms”.42 To deny socio-economic equality to the greatest number is, simultaneously, to deny the greatest number their fundamental right to the means of life. Thus, the reason why the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism impedes human development via private property, money and the profit-imperative.

Notwithstanding, while the micro-narrative of post-modernism focuses its attention and deconstructive critique upon the conceptual tyrannies of meta-narratives; i.e., the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, anarchism focuses its attention and deconstructive critique upon the material tyrannies of meta-narratives; i.e., the institutions of bourgeois-capitalism. The objective of both the narrative of anarchism and the narrative of post-modernism is to marshal together, “the mother of all liberty, the tradition of revolt, …for the realization of…[absolute] freedom”43 as “freedom can be created only by freedom, by a total rebellion of people”.44 That is, a rebellion capable of completely and utterly destroying the Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism so as to allow the full-maturity of post-modernity and anarchism to take place.

Ultimately, the apex and the zenith of post-modernism and anarchism is to be achieved via “the free organization of [micro-narratives] from the bottom up”45, devoid of any federal state-apparatus and any overarching, governing meta-narrative. The goal is a conceptual and material people’s revolution, capable of overturning the Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, while, simultaneously, installing an anarchist federation/patchwork of micro-narratives, whereupon no narrative is privileged over any other. And, each shares, in relative equal measure, the sum of all socio-economic resources in and across the newly-installed, post-modern, post-capitalist, anarchist society. All in all, post-modernism and anarchism is radical equality and plurality through the implementation of radical egalitarianism.

  1. Errico Malatesta, The Method of Freedom, ed. Davided Turcato, (Edinburgh, Scotland: AK Press, 2014) p. 3.
  2. Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean-Loup Thebaud, Just Gaming, Trans.  Wlad Godzich, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985) p. 58.
  3. Ibid, p. 62
  4. Ibid, pp. 59-60.
  5. Ibid, p. 74.
  6. Joseph Proudhon, What Is Property?, (United-States: Loki’s Publishing, 2017) p. 75.
  7. Ibid, p. 136.
  8. Ibid, p. 128.
  9. Ibid, p. 31.
  10. Ibid, p. 40.
  11. Ibid, p. 197.
  12. Ibid, p. 98.
  13. Ibid, p. 107.
  14. Ibid, p. 33.
  15. Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean-Loup Thebaud, Just Gaming, Trans. Wlad Godzich, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985) p. 81.
  16. Ibid, p. 94.
  17. Errico Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, ed. Vernon Richards, (London: Freedom Press, 1984) pp. 151-152.
  18. Errico Malatesta, The Method of Freedom, ed. Davided Turcato, (Edinburgh, Scotland: AK Press, 2014) p. 155.
  19. Errico Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, ed. Vernon Richards, (London: Freedom Press, 1984) p. 25.
  20. Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean-Loup Thebaud, Just Gaming, Trans. Wlad Godzich, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985) p. 59.
  21. Mikhail Bakunin, Bakunin On Anarchy, ed. Sam Dolgoff, (New York: Vintage Books, 1972) p. 205.
  22. Ibid, p. 268.
  23. Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean-Loup Thebaud, Just Gaming, Trans. Wlad Godzich, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985) p. 43.
  24. Mikhail Bakunin, Bakunin On Anarchy, ed. Sam Dolgoff, (New York: Vintage Books, 1972) p. 77.
  25. Michel Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge, trans. A.M. Sheridan-Smith, (New York, New York: Routledge, 1972) p. 191.
  26. Mikhail Bakunin, Bakunin On Anarchy, ed. Sam Dolgoff, (New York: Vintage Books, 1972) p. 88.
  27. Michel Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge, trans. A.M. Sheridan-Smith, (New York, New York: Routledge, 1972) p. 145.
  28. Mikhail Bakunin, Bakunin On Anarchy, ed. Sam Dolgoff, (New York: Vintage Books, 1972) p. 76.
  29. Ibid, p. 99.
  30. Ibid, p. 238.
  31. Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean-Loup Thebaud, Just Gaming, Trans. Wlad Godzich, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985) p. 65.
  32. Mikhail Bakunin, Bakunin On Anarchy, ed. Sam Dolgoff, (New York: Vintage Books, 1972) p. 305.
  33. Ibid, p. 284.
  34. Ibid, p. 55.
  35. Ibid, p. 43.
  36. Mikhail Bakunin, Bakunin On Anarchy, ed. Sam Dolgoff, (New York: Vintage Books, 1972) p. 5.
  37. Ibid, p. 68.
  38. Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean-Loup Thebaud, Just Gaming, Trans. Wlad Godzich, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985) p. 68.
  39. Ibid. p. 76.
  40. Ibid, p. 76.
  41. Mikhail Bakunin, Bakunin On Anarchy, ed. Sam Dolgoff, (New York: Vintage Books, 1972) p. 105.
  42. Ibid, p. 179.
  43. Ibid, p. 305.
  44. Ibid, p. 332.
  45. Ibid, p. 331.

Americans Are as Spacey as Ever

The white race – and I mean Israeli, Iberian, Slovak, Anglo-Saxon, Caucasian, and the lot of us – is crazy. We do not need Susan Sontag to declare the white race as cancer on the world to ramify the point, since it’s been more than 50 years since she declared:

If America is the culmination of Western white civilization, as everyone from the Left to the Right declares, then there must be something terribly wrong with Western white civilization. This is a painful truth; few of us want to go that far. … The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself.

The zenith of this insanity, of course, encompasses the world leaders of all those European nations, the UK, Australia, that demented cabal in Tel Aviv, the amazing daft of Americanos, and the entire lot who works the wormhole of destruction and continuing hollowing out with that soft shoe power of money, might and ethos that states “we don’t need no stinking ethics . . . and we kill the world at will.”

I’m working daily with homeless veterans, and the reality of what it means to have Trump or Clinton or Bernie or any of them in the leeching single party of Demons-RepubliRats running the show is that it’s a prostitute’s game of the highest order: homeless with property debts, evictions, miles and miles of contracts to pay back worthless schooling (degrees), mental health not being treated, crimes invented and prosecuted against them, endless toil in lines of bureaucracy, the trauma of substance abuse and then sobriety, the end game of just wanting to get a cheap house to call home to fortify against the constant chatter of the money launderers and repo men.

Reality is Americans in large part are broken, man, and their progeny are a hop, skip and a jump from disability classification, as each new birth is a crap-shoot of this or that physiological, genetic and mental impingement. Debilitating and lifelong scarlet letters of Double D-B-C-E at birth stitched on their Triple X sleeveless Budweiser T-shirts.

Disabled/Debt-ridden, Broken/Blank-Bankrupted, and Crippled/Corrupted, Epigenetic/ER-prone, at birth, as the psychological torturers bring to us more and more hormone-disrupting, DNA-warping, mental-draining and spiritual-tapping goods and services that have shackled us to a system of obsolescence, delusion, propaganda, and penury. We are not a united nation of anything but belief in the cartoonish ideology we are Number One and Ever-Conquering, yet the Chinese-made bombs bursting in air, hormone-drenched spare ribs, and GMO/pesticide-infused high fructose corn syrup Everything Goes Better with CocaCola on that one static day, July 4, push us to believe the lies, the big lie and the impending extinction of our own history.

Pondering the universe of delusional thinking, I am only 61, yet I feel like Rip Van Winkle, or worse, living my last third of life (if I get that lucky) inside the slipstream of human depravity on every level – from the bowels of the belly of the beast, to the syphilitic thinking of the star chamber levelers with their billions, their bots, their vision of a world tied to their modified DNA strains, existing someplace floating on ten thousand tethered space stations, near the reflection of their apple of their Dystopian eye, Mars.

A world colluding with the masters of consumption, addiction to fossil fuels, chemicals, wars, brain-barrier hacking entertainment, and the concomitant insanity of carving away species after species, while polluting precious fresh water, razing coral reefs, over-harvesting oceans, and living lifestyles where the cracked calories of cooked HomoConsumpithectus’ food and the endless pitching withdrawals of HomoRetailopithectus’ proclivity to sex, drugs, gambling, shopping, stupidity will forever shape the death of Earth’s ecosystems as we have known them up close and personal and through the bio-paleo-chemical microscopic records we have set as marching orders for our scientists and ecologists who are inevitably ignored at every turn of the Point Zero One Percent’s gluttony and narcissism.

The dream and the hope are now a requiem, lost on the flow of sperm through the epididymis, as we further unlock the barriers to a healthy society: how even the lumbering, pigsty physiology of the progenitor sperm donator HomoConsumopithectus can express the further quickening of the zygote’s snowball’s chance in hell gestating into anything but a cancer-seeded, on-the-spectrum, continual chronic fatigue syndrome child.

The number of people on planet earth – not just in the Chronic Exceptional Diseased America – with chronic illness and dripping concentration and retrograde humanity – is huge, largely tied to the superstition of  fascist religion and unending exploitation of each square acre of god’s green earth. This new normal of fear-at-birth and flagging-constitutions whereby the human race is racing away from the solutions to the disease of the mind and the pollution of land-atmosphere-air-water is not only unholy and denuding of spirit, but exactly what the Captains of Industry and Masters of the Gigabytes and Algorithms desire.

Choices, man: flipping burgers or humping backpacks in the US Military; lifetime debt for meaningless college degrees or the drudgery of working two or three jobs in the service and precarious economy; dealing into the game of American Castes or isolating in a world of addiction, pollution and surveillance?

Choices turning Americans into spies and enemies, suckers and marks, a deployed army of tens of millions ball-and-chained to the disease of fearing a worthy death in order to overthrow the powers, the militaries, and the mad men and women crafting the biggest lies since a resurrection and second coming.

Oddly, working with homeless veterans battling meth, opioids, booze, PTSD, disabilities from military service, and a cart-load of criminal convictions, I still come out daily with a sense of purpose and confidence that one man, one woman, can do something revolutionary, even in this I-Spy Sicko World of Plastic Futures. It’s the forest, not the single tree, that is diseased. The unending stupidity of the collective, whereby we allow the mighty dollar to hold sway over everything – trillions spent on the military’s implements of welfare/warfare while our collective mouths rot; the millions upon millions of babies born with birth defects and learning disabilities because we can’t muster up a collective” Hell No We Aren’t Going to Take These” chemicals sprayed on and in everything.

A study in mice conducted by researchers at Tufts University School of Medicine (TUSM) suggests that a woman’s risk of anxiety and dysfunctional social behavior may depend on the experiences of her parents, particularly fathers, when they were young. The study, published online in Biological Psychiatry, suggests that stress caused by chronic social instability during youth contributes to epigenetic changes in sperm cells that can lead to psychiatric disorders in female offspring across multiple generations.

Obese male mice and normal weight female mice produce female pups that are overweight at birth through childhood, and have delayed development of their breast tissue as well as increased rates of breast cancer.

The findings, published online June 24 in Scientific Reports by Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers, come from one of the first animal studies to examine the impact of paternal obesity on future generations’ cancer risk.

The researchers say they’ve found evidence that obesity changes the microRNA (miRNA) signature—epigenetic regulators of gene expression—in both the dad’s sperm and the daughter’s breast tissue, suggesting that miRNAs may carry the epigenetic information from obese dads to their daughters.

We are looking at a globe that navel gazes at these cretins – Multimillionaire Obamas, Clintons, Bush, and the deadly misanthropic billionaires club of the Gates-Bezos-Trump-Adelson- et al, and the dirty dealings of Madison Avenue, Wall Street, Holly-Dirt and the like. The attention span is square on the Tweet or the argumentative average American who will question a thousand PhDs working on climate change with his or her community college education.

So, no matter how homogenized the elites’ churned-out mush is, for instance, proclaiming how the world is so much less violent now than fifty years ago (another troll, Stephen Pinker), the reality is the white race is bent on hobbling the rest of the world with the pollution, indentured servant status, and disease creation to feed the most violent time in history of constant structural violence, mass incarceration, mass delusion, mass toxin-creating, hyper-caste generating. We are here, in a process of withering away, slowly, as this Tinhorn Country pokes holes in any common fabric the world holds sacred.

Stephen Pinker is wrong about the World of Enlightened Peoples Is Less Violent, easily beaten down here by a splendid writer:

There is something repellently absurd in the notion that war is a vice of “backward” peoples. Destroying some of the most refined civilizations that have ever existed, the wars that ravaged south-east Asia in the second world war and the decades that followed were the work of colonial powers. One of the causes of the genocide in Rwanda was the segregation of the population by German and Belgian imperialism. Unending war in the Congo has been fueled by western demand for the country’s natural resources. If violence has dwindled in advanced societies, one reason may be that they have exported it.

Then again, the idea that violence is declining in the most highly developed countries is questionable. Judged by accepted standards, the United States is the most advanced society in the world. According to many estimates the US also has the highest rate of incarceration, some way ahead of China and Russia, for example. Around a quarter of all the world’s prisoners are held in American jails, many for exceptionally long periods. Black people are disproportionately represented, many prisoners are mentally ill and growing numbers are aged and infirm. Imprisonment in America involves continuous risk of assault by other prisoners. There is the threat of long periods spent in solitary confinement, sometimes (as in “supermax” facilities, where something like Bentham’s Panopticon has been constructed) for indefinite periods – a type of treatment that has been reasonably classified as torture. Cruel and unusual punishments involving flogging and mutilation may have been abolished in many countries, but, along with unprecedented levels of mass incarceration, the practice of torture seems to be integral to the functioning of the world’s most advanced state.

Funny stuff, that which precipitates my noggin: Was reading this writer’s (Karl Schroeder) take on what it means to Escape the Default Future When Writing Science Fiction:

There’s a term that futurists use: “the default future.” The default future is what we assume is going to happen, as a matter of obvious fact. Its assumptions are so deeply ingrained that we don’t even know they’re there. For instance, current popular culture typically imagines one of just three possible future Earths: an Orwellian dystopia, a post-apocalyptic wasteland, or a space-faring urban hypercivilization.

But should we? Sharing the wealth among nine billion will be hard. In many nations, birth-rates are on the decline. Shouldn’t we encourage that trend?

Here’s a proposal: let’s get smaller. Imagine a future where the economy is increasingly automated and taps into the infinite resources of outer space; and where humanity shares a core of common goods such as Universal Basic Income, Universal Healthcare, and free education. These aren’t fantasies, they’re trends. Now add to this mix a naturally declining population that retains its genetic diversity. The formula for our future becomes: more and more wealth, divided among fewer and fewer people.

In material terms alone, the results are staggering. Imagine if your family owned Paris? Or was responsible for tending the Catskill Mountains? What does wealth mean when robotics, automation and AI mean that each person can have, not money or an income, but his or her own economy? When kids learn history by reenacting the Battle of the Somme with real robot armies? When you don’t watch movies, you have the entire story including sets, car chases and crowd scenes, played out for you by troops of android players?

And here we are, these elitists and thought experimenters, sticking their intellectual tongues out at us, the majority of us, 6 billion-plus, pontificating about a world that is less violent or one that can be depopulated for a cool million, or how better the world is with a point-zero-zero-one Percent controlling us with their flimflam ideas, their products, their tools of oppression, their war is peace simulated psycho-babble. We are subject to their whims, their marketing, and their disease-generating ideologies — arrogance, chauvinism, immorality, all things filtered through the American lens/ White Race’s Lens, that is.

So I come to the end of this screed, precipitated by the daily sin of living and working in America as my fellow Americans (sic) become more and more punch drunk crazy on their own self-admiration. But also catalyzed by some insipid article,

New archaeological research from The Australian National University (ANU) has found that Homo erectus, an extinct species of primitive humans, went extinct in part because they were ‘lazy’.

The premise is that Homo erectus failed to mine better materials to be more efficient (killers) and more widely spread-out hunters. Ironically, the fool’s errand is we as a society/ dominator civilization are absolutely lazy when it comes to our daftness around this collapsing planet, dying ecosystems and soon-to-be-extinct millions of species. Climate change and mitigating that existential crisis, which we have failed tremendously at, we have proven our Homo Sapiens ilk as both lazy and lazier than any Homo erectus that may have been eliminated by more warring and consumptive species, now,  HomoConsumpithectus.

Terms like least effort strategies and they did not have that sense of wonder we have come from this Australian anthropologist’s mouth in his dusting off of Homo erectus gathering sites.

The arrogance of this thinking, that they — Homo erectus — knew the better stone was there but decided against it because they felt they had enough adequate raw materials and decided against rarefied tool making. He goes on to say that the stone tool makers of later periods, including early Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, “who were climbing mountains to find good quality stone and transporting it over long distances,” outstripped our progenitor clan Homo erectus as survivors.

Shipton (the Aussie) states this is a failure to progress technologically, and as their environment dried out into a desert, the Homo erectus species’ population’s demise was inevitable.

Ironic, really, now as we Homo/Retail/Consumo-Sapiens have worked so hard to rape the planet and chug out toxins and greenhouse gases that we are failing more than any other past species in our line to grapple with this greenhouse gas inevitability —

The study, “Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene,” was published in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

As for what to do to prevent a hothouse Earth, it’s easier said than done: Decarbonize the world economy, end deforestation, improve farming techniques and promote carbon-capture technologies, among other recommendations.

This can “only be achieved and maintained by a coordinated, deliberate effort by human societies to manage our relationship with the rest of the Earth system, recognizing that humanity is an integral, interacting component of the system,” according to the study. “Humanity is now facing the need for critical decisions and actions that could influence our future for centuries, if not millennia.”

This is August 2018, and yet, my slipstream life intersects daily sometimes dozens of times with the chauvinism of partial truths, counter-intuitive stasis, collective unknowing, and frequent mistruths.

I have new ways to teach and work with this blind thinking, but in one sense, I find the white race in America log-jammed, and even around sincere and fairly robustly interested folk, there are blind sides.

Imagine, we eat apples year round. Sometimes apples in the store are 14 months old, meaning we are tricked into eating foods out of season, out of our own bio-region. Apples are picked, then warehoused away in a place where oxygen is cut back to a low percentage, the temperature is just a touch above 32 degrees, and the skins sprayed on with fungicides. The problem is that these apples lose their antioxidant power quickly —  polyphenols.

The apple is a microcosm of the entire broken system of addiction to oil, embedded energy out the roof, bad choices, and what that Australian anthropologist might want to look at sociologically by seeing his own species, and his own brethren — science and technology —  as the perpetrators of humanity’s demise. But, oh, we are a busy-busy species, making those Homo erectus die-offs look like the ultimate slackers!

Herd-Mediocrity and The Meta-Narrative of Bourgeois-Capitalism

The Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism is committed to mediocrity. In fact, the Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism celebrates it. Everywhere the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism reigns supreme, mediocrity follows, due to the fact mediocrity is the order and the criterion of any type of hierarchy founded on the Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism. Indeed, as Nietzsche states, under such rubric “one and all [is] adjusted…to the most dubious mediocrity”.1, as the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism concerns itself, foremost, with the propagation, the celebration, and the production of mediocrity, in and across, the stratums of everyday life and socio-economic existence. The reason is due the fact that mediocrity is most profitable and the most obdurate socio-economic substance any socio-economic formation or narrative can fashion for itself.  Meaning, mediocrity increases capitalist profit and the chances of duration, longevity, and resilience, pertaining to any ruling power.

Mediocrity is a congealed, unyielding, mass of citizens, intolerant to social change, novelty and liberty in the sense that mediocrity wants its own suppression, enslavement, and homogenization, which any ruling power can readily accommodate easily. Mediocrity is a herd, according to Nietzsche:

It is a bulbous mass stringently against [differences] of all kinds. [That is,] conservative…par excellence, slow to adopt, reluctant to let go, and [highly] enduring in the midst of …tremendous change and mixture of elements. Mediocrity [is]… consolidated and solidified [around a grounding] truth. [Its herd is always mediocre and solid.2

In this regard, for Nietzsche, herd-mediocrity is “inertia…[where] the middle… is considered the highest and most valuable”3 in the sense that this middle-of-the-road “herd mentality is forever directed towards stand still and [its] preservation”.4 And, due to this fact, the Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism is dead-set on manufacturing, maintaining, and celebrating mediocrity of all types and kinds in its attempt to preserve and profit from its totalitarian supremacy.

Moreover, mediocrity of all types and kinds is where capital accumulates in the greatest number, as mediocrity is the dictatorial center, the average median and middle, which houses the greatest number of generic people, thus, the greatest sum of potential capital; i.e., surplus value. Mediocrity is profitable. It is the most generic and the most average; therefore, mediocrity, atop of being obdurate and unyielding to any type of change, is also the biggest reservoir of untapped capitalist profit, hence, the increasing emphasis and focus by bourgeois-state-capitalism, on averages, medians, and generic middles etc., that is, the dictatorship of the middle and/or the dictatorship of mediocrity. For example:

In its effort to maximize profit and its supremacy, the logic of capitalism ever-increasingly propels itself towards the lowest common denominator, [in search of maximum profit], where capital, authority and legitimacy is most robust, concentrated and abundant, namely where the majority resides. This means that all types of commodities are increasingly trite, pointless, disposable and/or identical. Whether politically and/or economically, all commodities are increasingly purged of substance, rareness, spirit and/or individuality so as to mimic the average stereotypes of the median majority. The lowest common denominator, located in the most basic average general median, is the most profitable, the most powerful and the most fixed position with the parameters of [bourgeois-state-capitalism].5

Consequently, mediocrity is the most inflexible form and profitable form the general-population can be fashioned into. And, this is exactly what the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, which is imprinted upon all the stratums of everyday life, does and/or attempts to do, at all times and in all spaces in and across of the capitalist-system. As a result, mediocrity personified, exterminates heterogeneity, plurality, and diversity, through maudlin, sappy, popular tastes and generic ways of life, which, in fanatic fashion hunt, trap, and asphyxiate, all that is truly different, novel, heterogeneous, plural and post-modern. The goal of the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism is to produce, disseminate, and propagate, endless rounds, stops and starts, of fashionable mediocrity; i.e., profitable mediocrity, which can again breed ever-new rounds of profitable mediocrity, ad nauseam.

Profitability breeds profitability. Mediocrity breeds mediocrity. And, mediocrity can only see, believe, and understand its own kind, namely, universal mediocrity as “herd-[mediocrity] seeks [only] to preserve one type…itself”6, and more importantly, it “hates those who detach themselves [from it]…[and thus it] turns the hatred of the all…against them”.7 Therefore, mediocrity only celebrates its own kind in a sort of lame over-excessive jubilation, such is what the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism does, or attempts to do, through its omnipresent spectacle, showered onto the general-population and the art-world. The point is to captivate and manufacture herd-mediocrity long enough in order to siphon capitalist profits out of this herd-mediocrity, all the while placing these capitalist profits into the hands of a state-finance-corporate-aristocracy.

Consequently, the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism “presents itself as something enormously positive, indisputable and inaccessible. It says nothing more than ‘that which appears is good [and] that which is good, appears”.8 This omnipresent positivity is then channeled into capitalist consumption whereupon commodities connected to the herd-majority, and a sense of belonging to this herd-majority, are designed to embody this omnipresent positivity, which is manufactured by the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism through its controlling media-outlets, star-personalities and incessant, bourgeois-propaganda.  Hence, the primary reason why the Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism has to be smashed, deconstructed, and fragmented beyond recognition since the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism endlessly promotes mediocrity ad nauseam, namely, a type of bourgeois-capitalism mediocrity, which ultimately, stifles innovation, creativity, plurality, heterogeneity and the flourishing of post-modernism. Namely, the progress, plurality and diversity stemming from all the independent micro-narratives interweaving the island-pockets of post-modernity, dotting the capitalist-system.

According to Nietzsche, meta-narratives lack verity and grounding truth. They are imposed onto the world so as to make sense of it, a meta-narrative “decides the character of appearance, [namely] reality”.9 However, for Nietzsche, there is “no limit to ways in which the world can be interpreted”10, because as Nietzsche states, “underneath it all…there is no grand unity…[all] is perspectival appearance, whose origin lies in us. To this extent…the denial of …a truthful world, [or] being, is…the only way of thinking”.11 The reason is due to the fact any meta-narrative lacks universal validity in the sense that any meta-narrative is an illusory manifestation of the will to power in its attempt to establish and impose its own despotic dominion on the world.

According to Nietzsche, “it is our needs that interpret the world…[that is] our lust to rule”12, which imposes meaning and sense onto the world. And, out of this will to power, meta-narratives like the Enlightenment and bourgeois-capitalism have developed and encroached upon western civilizations in a authoritarian manner. They have been utilized to build despotic dominions, both conceptual and material, pertaining to how the general-population thinks and acts within society.  Without meta-narratives, according to Nietzsche:

An infinite plurality of perspectives [awaits]…[as] there are not facts, [or truths, to hold us]. Everything is in flux, incomprehensible, elusive [and a matter of] our opinion. What man things is nothing but what he himself has imported into them… [via his or her] will to power.13

In effect, for Nietzsche, plurality, flux, incommensurability, and partial incomprehensibility is the underlying human condition in the sense that humans can never possess a complete comprehension and mastery over reality, phenomena and/or situations. They understand only partially from the finite limits of their positional perspectives, which are forever fleeting, due to the inherent flux and existential anarchy of existence. All that meta-narratives do is impose a one-dimensional interpretation on events and phenomena, impeding plurality, heterogeneity, and the flourishing of post-modernism so as to flatter a totalitarian point of view, that is, an arbitrary/artificial meta-narrative designed to monopolize interpretation, power and knowledge.

For Nietzsche, such overarching perspectives, like the Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, are designed to cultivate converts, namely, a herd of followers. Meta-narratives, like bourgeois-capitalism, require converts; i.e., believers, in order to establish their despotic dominion over reality. As a result, these converts are forced to exercise a certain level of self-denial and deception, on others and themselves, in order to manifest the plausibility and effect of truth, pertaining to the illusory universal verity of the ruling meta-narrative, in this case, the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism.

For Nietzsche, any “truth is…the consequence of an illusion”10, derived from its particular perspective; i.e., narrative, and believers must learn to deny their internal disbelief and impose the “artificially built chimera”14, both on themselves and others, which in essence, is all that a meta-narrative is, namely, a chimera. That is, a perspective arbitrarily and artificially imposed and applied to the world and reality, which is inherently without universal verity, other than, “as a tool of power [exercised by] the will to power”.15 Subsequently, the Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism is but an arbitrary/artificial conglomeration of wills to power, forming one giant will to power, designed to despotically impose an arbitrary/artificial order on the variability of phenomena, reality and socio-economic existence, devoid of any verity other than the accumulation and monopolization of power in the hands of a select few.

Moreover, according to Nietzsche, “for every age and every new type of [society] …new truths…[new] delusions,…new values”16 are enunciated, for which the general-population must learn to abide by and accept as timeless verities. It is in this regard that the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism transforms the general-population into an obedient, docile, herd-mediocrity, reflecting its bogus verities and baseless beliefs. Initially, “the program of [bourgeois-capitalist] Enlightenment…was the disenchantment of the world; the dissolution of myths and the substitution of knowledge for fancy. [Yet] knowledge, which is power, knows no obstacles [and has resulted] in the enslavement of men [and] compliance with the world’s rulers”.17 As a result, the Enlightenment, through its meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, cunningly continues to exercise totalitarian control and domination over mankind, which is forced to increasingly accept and internalize a false, one-dimensional, abbreviated world-view imposed upon it. Herd-mediocrity is a product of this imposition and enslavement.

Indeed, once established, according to Nietzsche, “the herd…consolidates its mediocrity and always goes against everything new and exceptional. The power of the herd [and its] institutions,…[is meant to] grind the unique into uniformity and turn it into herd”.18 Herd-mediocrity is the essential substance and reason for the longevity of bourgeois-capitalism and its ever-accumulating profits. It provides the state-finance-corporate-aristocracy of bourgeois-capitalism with a bottomless reservoir of available and exploitable, capitalist profits while simultaneously providing the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism with an endless procession of religious, capitalist converts, ready to sing its praises. It is in this regard that, according to Horkheimer and Adorno, “in service of the present age, [the] Enlightenment [has] become [the] wholesale deception of the masses”.19 Through its cherished meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, the Enlightenment turns “the evolution of the machine…into…the machinery of domination…[wherefore] technical and social tendencies, [now] interwoven, converge in the total schematization of men”.20 And, the end result is mediocrity, profitable-mediocrity, the most treasured output of the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, that is, herd-mediocrity.

The meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism is a machine, an ideational comprehensive framework, both material and conceptual, where all questions, problems and/or situations have their black and white answers/interpretations, yes and no procedures, where, all social-ills have their easy-fix solutions and scapegoats. And once, ingrained and programmed into the general-population, the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism wreaks havoc in and across the everyday life of the workforce/population, grinding it down into an ironclad herd uniformity, mentality, and mediocrity, which can only serve capitalist profitability and bourgeois-capitalism-authority, all the while leaving the workforce/population confused, dumbfounded, brainwashed and/or socially embittered.

Notwithstanding, the consolidated red-thread weaving this herd uniformity, mentality, and mediocrity, is the red-thread of the Enlightenment, that is, the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, whose underlying “prime directive is forever to maximize the accumulation and extraction of …capital, by any means necessary…as soon as possible”.21 Consequently, herd-mediocrity is the primary product of the red-thread, that is, bourgeois-capitalism, not the other way around. In fact, without the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, the herd becomes post-modern, plural, poly-rational, and fully heterogeneous, devoid of bourgeois sensibilities, tastes and/or any overarching bourgeois status quo. When post-modernism reaches its nth degree, post-modernism will as well reach the pinnacle of its development, maturity, diversity, plurality and heterogeneity, which can only mean the total deconstruction of bourgeois-capitalism. Without the red-thread of bourgeois-capitalism, total insurrection, and the realization of full-fledge post-modernism, pure, simple, and unadulterated, devoid of any overarching authority and/or unified logic, other than, the poly-logic of multiplicity, plurality, heterogeneity, and pragmatic egalitarianism, whereupon all decision-making-authority is shared in relative equal measure.

  1. Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight Of The Idols, Trans. R.J. Hollingdale (New York, New York: Penguin Books, 1990) p. 75.
  2. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will To Power, Ed. Walter Kaufmann (New York, New York: Vintage Books, 1967) p. 461.
  3. Ibid, p. 159.
  4. Ibid, p. 162.
  5. Michel Luc Bellemare, The Structural-Anarchism Manifesto: (The Logic of Structural-Anarchism Versus The Logic of Capitalism), (Montréal: Blacksatin Publications Inc., 2016).
  6. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will To Power, Ed. Walter Kaufmann (New York, New York: Vintage Books, 1967) pp. 161-162.
  7. Ibid, p. 157.
  8. Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle, (Detroit: Black and Red, 1983) p. 12.
  9. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will To Power, Ed. Walter Kaufmann (New York, New York: Vintage Books, 1967) p. 149.
  10. Ibid, p. 326.
  11. Ibid, pp. 13-15.
  12. Ibid, pp. 267-269.
  13. Ibid, pp. 327-328.
  14. Ibid, p. 302.
  15. Ibid, p. 266-267.
  16. Ibid, pp. 461-462.
  17. Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Trans. John Cumming (New York: Continuum, 2000) pp. 3-4.
  18. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will To Power, Ed. Walter Kaufmann (New York, New York: Vintage Books, 1967) pp. 461-462.
  19. Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Trans. John Cumming (New York: Continuum, 2000) p. 42.
  20. Ibid, p. 35.
  21. Michel Luc Bellemare, The Structural-Anarchism Manifesto: (The Logic of Structural- Anarchism Versus The Logic of Capitalism), (Montréal: Blacksatin Publications Inc., 2016.).

Jordan Peterson and Social-Darwinism

I do not normally respond to people I have respect for, and consider, on most counts, a genuine activist, but I have to take issue with Mr. Rancourt’s recent article about the validity of Jordan Peterson’s notion of dominance hierarchy.

The reason is because there is a myopic, narrow-minded bias to Jordan Peterson’s theory of dominance hierarchies, a bias which supports the bourgeois status quo and attacks all things or theories which might lead to positive, radical, social change.

First and foremost, Mr. Rancourt’s experiments in critical pedagogy at the University of Ottawa, were revolutionary and showed us, on the radical left, what a post-bourgeois education-system would look like if bourgeois-capitalism collapsed. And, more importantly, Mr. Rancourt’s experiment in critical pedagogy showed us on the radical left that such an anarchist education-system can work, and work quite well, given the absence of the bourgeois-academic-system and its tyrannical bureaucracy. For this, Mr. Rancourt deserves genuine praise.

However, Mr. Rancourt’s  experiment in critical pedagogy broke the fundamental rule of the bourgeois-university; i.e., “intelligence is obedience and obedience is intelligence”, and for his radical transgression, Mr. Rancourt faced the full blunt of bourgeois-fascism, both from his former employer and the bourgeois-justice-system. If Marx’s famous statement, “philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various way, the point, however, is to change it”1, applies anywhere, it applies to Mr. Rancourt’s courage in persisting with his experiment to its conclusion, regardless of consequences.

Notwithstanding, I have always found that those in the hard sciences, if they happen to make the jump into radical political philosophy and social activism, tend, after their initial radical left-wing splash, to drift towards the far-right of the political-spectrum, depending on the individual. An extreme, but poignant, example of this tendency is Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, whose radical politics for social luddite revolution, in a characteristic black and white dichotomy, a dichotomy stringently engineered and honed for success in the hard sciences, eventually led to Mr. Kaczynski’s calcification into radical cynicism and a type of authoritarian, right-wing, program of action. All of which happened after he encountered the plurality, flexibility and nihilism found in the humanities and certain strands of political philosophy. In effect, departing from the seemingly secure grounds of the hard sciences, and discovering, according to Paul Feyerabend, that “anything goes”.2 Mr. Kaczynski hardened himself, over time, into a political killing machine. One just needs to read Mr. Kaczynski’s literature, most recently his book, Anti-Tech. Revolution, to get a sense of his rigid, despotic, authoritarianism.

Of course, I am not saying Mr. Rancourt is anywhere close to being this out of touch, but Mr. Rancourt, has slowly drifted to the right of the political-spectrum, as of late, whether, this is his gentle support of Iran, Vladimir Putin, or most recently, Jordan Peterson. The basic point of radical left politics is to do away with authoritarianism in all its shapes and forms, from an Iranian dictatorship to the bourgeois-capitalism of the United-States.

Subsequently, contrary to Mr. Rancourt’s recent article with Jordan Peterson, we are fundamentally dealing with a proponent of Social-Darwinism. That is, a form of Social-Darwinian-Ideology, which is, in my estimation, only designed to serve and buttress the bourgeois status quo and the bourgeois-aristocracy, as rightfully legitimate and worthy of their positions, academic and/or otherwise; specifically, that their most esteemed bourgeois-aristocratic members are worthy of their elevated positions in and across the dominance hierarchy.

Contrary to Mr. Peterson, the fact is that any honest intellectual, looking at our society today, can factually see that the best and brightest do not always, or if ever, occupy the upper-echelons of any contemporary dominance hierarchy, academia, politics, business, sex, etcetera. In actuality, today the reverse is the case in the sense that we see constantly that the best and brightest are being left behind, or are forced to remain on the lower rungs of bourgeois-society, scrounging for their existence while the system favors and promotes an obedient herd-mediocrity at every level. That is, those individuals who best subserviently, ideologically, and obediently buttress and propagate the bourgeois status quo, towing, with certain docile obedience, the dominant ideological tenets of bourgeois-capitalism, bourgeois-academia, bourgeois-elites, and the overall, bourgeois status quo.

I would argue that Mr. Peterson is one of these obedient bourgeois-ideologues, who cunningly, playing the outsider for the cameras, has cultivated for himself a disenfranchised herd of followers whom he is now trying to appease and put back into bourgeois-subservience via his brand of pop-psychology. Indeed, this herd of followers was susceptible to Mr. Peterson’s Social-Darwinism because most people have never encountered “real” radical left-politics in the classroom, other than the lame centrist-liberalism, which is now peddled as hip and edgy on University campuses. Subsequently, one of the reasons for Mr. Peterson’s recent popularity is that the bourgeois-university has persistently, for 35 years or so, been purging radical academics from the sanctified halls of its universities in favor of obedient, docile, neoliberal, bourgeois-cogs, which readily defend and peddle bourgeois-academic-mediocrity and the bourgeois status quo ad nauseam. How easily we forget that Einstein did most of his ground-breaking physics as an outcast, an outcast of bourgeois-academia, which essentially forced Einstein to moonlight as a physicist by night and a patent-clerk by day. And not much has changed today in and across bourgeois-universities.

Clearly, Jordan Peterson is one of the proponents and ideologues of the conventional bourgeois status quo in the sense that the man was at the center of Canadian bourgeois-academia for some 20 years or more. He resided in the comfortable womb-like center of conservative bourgeois-academia, wallowing in its profitable-mediocrity. He was a tenured professor, a protector of the bourgeois scientific tradition, an upper-class Torontonian, a right-wing, anti-communist crusader etc., bent to prevent the liberalization of Canadian universities and its student body. This is a man who has endlessly championed the fundamental rule of bourgeois-academia: “obedience is intelligence and intelligence is obedience”. What a shocker! Now Peterson is taking this bourgeois-academic-principle to the masses, evangelizing the uneducated and the narrow-minded educated about the transformative powers of obedience, the legitimacy of bourgeois-authority, all of which is being filtered into the minutia of our everyday lives. Clean your room, stand up straight, trust your western bourgeois-governments and myopic scientific results, and please, salute all bourgeois-aristocrats higher-up on the dominance ladder for they are your social better and your emblems to socially emulate etc.!

Mr. Peterson is the equivalent of a bourgeois-conservative’s wet-dream, a throw-back to 1930s social engineering. The man is against all forms of radical social change and social mobility which might threaten the current rank and file of our bourgeois dominance hierarchies. Everything new and different is bad, everything tradition, bourgeois, and homogenized, is good. He, in fact, alleviates bourgeois-aristocratic anxieties by vindicating their pathological greed, their lust for power, and their down-right selfishness by arguing that whatever one’s station in life, or in society, be it upper, or lower, in a dominance hierarchy etc., is fundamentally based on Darwinian natural selection. So straighten-up and fly-right, bucko! Because you and your neighbor, whatever your positions are, in and across the dominance hierarchy, are rightfully warranted by Darwinian natural selection. Therefore, inequality of all types and kinds is valid, legitimate, and more importantly, biologically necessary for our species’ survival. This type of logic is pure, ideological, nonsense, which reeks of 19th century crackpot, Social-Darwinism.

Indeed, surrounded by hapless ignorant sycophants, Mr. Peterson is fond of quoting Nietzsche, as if Nietzsche’s work reflects Social-Darwinian-Ideology. However, Nietzsche is not a proponent of Social-Darwinism. He is against Social-Darwinism and stated as much on more than one occasion. Nietzsche would shriek in horror at Peterson’s proposition that a dominance hierarchy is legitimated on the Darwinian grounds of natural selection.

In fact, to the contrary, Nietzsche argued that across western civilizations and western cultures, it is the most mediocre of our species which are the most apt to succeed in reaching the top of bourgeois dominance hierarchies because these herd-animals embody and represent the most enduring, conservative, and brutish characteristics of our species; i.e., the inhuman and the average. Their propensity for the inhuman and averageness gives them an advantage over more evolved humans.  As Nietzsche states, “mediocrity always goes against everything new and exceptional [since] the new is always against the herd. The [herd] grinds the unique into uniformity and turns it into herd”.3 However, it is the job, according to Nietzsche, of the herdsman “to retain…the herd, flatter it, work with [it, in order to] consolidate its mediocrity”4 and direct it against any exceptional uber-mensch.

Jordan Peterson is certainly Nietzsche’s herdsman and has always been so. He is not an uber-mensch since, according to Nietzsche, an uber-mensch is an individual deserving of our admiration because this individual extends and expends, him or herself, over the abyss, living creatively, solitarily, and differently against the parameters set by herd-mediocrity. Ironically, the uber-mensch is both without followers and constantly subjected to the cruelty of the herd and the herdsman. For Nietzsche, “it is the object of herd education [via the herdsman] to create in the herd member…a definite faith concerning the nature of man”5, wherefore, “inertia…[and] the middle is considered the highest and the most valuable”.5 In a nutshell, this is Mr. Peterson’s whole academic project: (1) to solidify the bourgeois status quo while championing herd-mediocrity as the highest and most valuable attributes, when climbing any bourgeois dominance hierarchy; and, (2) Peterson’s academic project consists in marshaling the vindictiveness embodied in herd-mediocrity against all that is different, plural, and exceptional, namely, all that is not generic, average, and a part of the bourgeois status quo, namely, all that reflects post-modernism.

Let’s have a little fun:

If, for argument sake, we accept Mr. Peterson’s theory and ludicrous claims concerning the fact that only the most powerful; i.e., the best and the brightest of the human species get to the top of a dominance hierarchy, sexual or otherwise, then, why is Mr. Peterson bemoaning, according to his own deluded conspiratorial perceptions, the rise of the radical left in academia (which is, in fact, totally the opposite). That is, why is Mr. Peterson bemoaning the rise of another red-specter haunting the nooks and crannies of western bourgeois-civilization, when, by his own theoretical admissions, this red-specter would constitute the product of natural selection; i.e., the scientific fact that the cream always rises to the top. And, if Marxism and communism is the cream, then natural selection shall give onto Caesar what rightfully belongs onto Caesar. In effect, his own Social-Darwinian-Ideology can be utilized to vindicate the rise of communism, Marxism and/or the rise of radical liberalism in academia, including the rise of political correctness. The fact is you cannot apply, in any deterministic fashion, biology to socio-economic conditions, hence, the fact Jordan Peterson’s theory of dominance hierarchy is bourgeois-ideology in disguise, and a fallacy. Because, if natural selection is the fundamental arbiter of any dominance hierarchy, then whatever rules during any historical period; i.e., slavery, paternalism, homophobia, racism, sexism, even Nazism etc., by Jordan Peterson’s own theoretical musings is deserving of our praise as that which is most legitimate, most worthy, and most apt for the continuance of our evolution at that particular time in history.

Jordan Peterson’s popularity as some sort of socio-cultural phenomenon is strictly a matter of the fact that he flatters the upper-echelons of the bourgeois-aristocracy, namely, his musings on natural selection flatter, and vindicate the exploitations, the religious illusions, and the ideological bourgeois-fetishisms of a conservative-aristocratic demographic, including their low-brow acolytes. Peterson tells these bourgeois-aristocrats, with confidence and boldness, that they are worthy of their elevated positions and social status because natural selection has made it so. This is their cross to bear as superior beings. After-all, it is the bourgeois-aristocracy which gives Jordan Peterson air-time in the mainstream-media. Few socialist theoreticians are given mainstream air-time like Peterson, despite the fact there are many socialist theoreticians who run circles around Mr. Peterson, possessing far more deserving research and theoretical outputs. In fact, these socialist theoreticians, for the most part, have been relegated to obscurity and marginality by the bourgeois status quo and bourgeois-academia. The fact is Jordan Peterson is first and foremost a conservative bourgeois-ideologue, the lightning rod for a low-brow right-wing fad, propagated by elitist bourgeois-aristocrats to piss-off the left, make a little money, and reassert their conservative, regressive mind-sets. The tragedy in all of this is those segments of the workforce/population, which have swallowed the cool-aid and who, in the end, will be left footing the bill for such a spectacle.

The fundamental message, in the end, which Jordan Peterson peddles like another Doctor Phil, is that what happens to you in life is your own doing. Granted, Peterson states life is brutish and a war of all against all, but ultimately, where you end up in the grand scheme of things, according to Peterson, is the result of your own choices and individual actions; i.e., free-will. And free-will, for any philosopher is contestable. For Peterson, there are no bias bourgeois-institutions, no global economic reasons, no cultural reasons, or for that matter, no other scientific biological reasons, for the things that happen to a person. In the final analysis, according to Peterson, what happens is your own fault, for better or for worse. The world only cherishes and remembers the winners, the higher species, not the losers. Is Bill Cosby a higher species? Is Harvey Weinstein a higher species? Is Donald Trump a more evolved species?

These depraved sub-humans occupy, or have occupied, the upper-echelons of the bourgeois-aristocracy for decades, comporting themselves as the brutish savage Mr. Peterson so eloquently champions. Yet, are these the creatures young men should emulate! Is this natural selection at work, sifting and separating, the strong from the weak? Dominance hierarchies may be strictly based on deterministic biology in the animal kingdom, namely, hierarchy may be founded solely on natural selection in nature, as Darwin stipulates, as animals are at the mercy of their natural instincts, but humans are not, despite being a type of mammal.

Also, Peter Kropotkin observed the principle of mutual-aid at work in nature and in direct contrast to Darwinian natural selection, wherefore animals among themselves and among each other, according to Kropotkin, would collaborate for their mutual advancement, survival, benefit, and support. That is, these species, supposedly at war, could be seen helping each other in an altruistic manner climb the dominance ladder together. Such examples are endless; thus, maybe Darwin got it wrong, and animals as well can overcome the brutality of natural selection.

The fact is humans construct all sorts of hierarchies based on all sorts of premises and principles, not just some mechanistic law of Darwinian natural selection. Moreover, not all humans construct hierarchies. Some live communally, sharing in relative equal measure. There are no biological imperatives which determine a dominance hierarchy. Socially speaking, sometimes there are hierarchies, sometimes there are not, and sometimes we, as humans, alternate between various hierarchies simultaneously. In a hair-dresser’s domain, he/she rules, but in the classroom, you rule if you are the educator etc.

Even anarchist horizontal hierarchies are possible for the human species given the right socio-economic conditions like the overthrow of bourgeois-capitalism. Consequently, not being deterministically governed by dominance or natural selection a society can rid itself of any form of dominance hierarchy and has done so throughout history. There is no deterministic biological imperative by which we, today, must live under the thumb of a bourgeois-aristocracy, academic, political, economic etc., if we so choose.  And, more importantly, the overthrow of bourgeois-state-capitalism, contrary to Jordan Peterson, may very well be more progressive, more in tune with natural selection, and an overall better emblem of justice than the current myopic, narrow-minded, bias, bourgeois-justice we are currently forced to live with. In sum, decision-making-authority can be equally shared, in relative equal measure, among all citizens. Money and capital can be distributed equally among any citizenry etc., dominance can be defined in a multiplicity of manners. We do not have to subscribe to Mr. Peterson’s authoritarian definition of dominance.

Jordan Peterson argues for a singular dominance hierarchy solely based on some sort of might equals right biological imperative, wherefore, the most powerful get all the sex they could ever want, and the weak are relegated to obscurity and the dust-bin of history. Subsequently, maybe its high-time we jettison Jordan Peterson’s ad hoc Social-Darwinian-Ideology to the dust-bin of history, and let the chips fall where they may, and while we are at it, why not do the same with bourgeois-academia, bourgeois-aristocracy and bourgeois-capitalism, and, once again, let the chips fall where they may.

  1. Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach”, The Marx-Engels Reader. ed. Robert C. Tucker (New York, New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 1978) p. 145.
  2. Paul Feyerabend, Against Method. (London: Verso, 1975) p. 163.
  3. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will To Power, Ed. Walter Kaufmann (New York, New York: Vintage Books, 1967) pp. 461-462.
  4. Ibid, pp. 461-462.
  5. Ibid, p. 159.

Post-Modernism Has Not Smashed To Pieces The Meta-Narrative of Bourgeois-Capitalism

Western high-tech civilization can never fully enter the post-modern era without eradicating civilization of bourgeois-state-capitalism, namely, the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, that encrusted jewel, dead center, within the crown of the Enlightenment, which continues to infect and poison high-tech society with a most horrible sickness, insatiable avarice, an avarice for unlimited power and money. The post-modern era cannot achieve full maturity under current bourgeois-capitalism conditions as the grand-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism continually impedes the overwhelming diversity and plurality that post-modernity champions and inherently demands. In effect, post-modernism has not smashed to pieces all the grand-narratives of the Enlightenment, specifically bourgeois-capitalism which, itself, continues to stalk the bright and the dark corners of western civilization, weaving and grafting incommensurable global and local narratives into a massive totalitarian meta-narrative, namely, the logic of capitalism.

Contrary to Jean-Francois Lyotard, “the principle of a plurality of [linguistic] systems”,1 existing side by side in incommensurable independence, without any overarching meta-narrative terrorizing over the others in the name of homogeneity and totalitarian unity, is false and nonsense. It is false and nonsense because bourgeois-capitalism encroaches upon every aspect of everyday life, stitching any sort of incommensurable narrative into a functionalist-capitalist dominion. That is, a dominion whose fundamental imperative is the profit-imperative; i.e., the logic of capitalism, which commands, “the maximization of profit, by any means necessary, at the lowest financial cost, as soon as possible”2 for all narratives; i.e., language-games, big or small, regardless of genre and/or expediency.

The primary characteristic of the post-modern age; i.e., the post-modern condition, is that “grand narrative[s] [have] lost…credibility”3 and that “the decline of [meta-narratives] can be seen as an effect of the development of techniques and technologies, since the Second World War”,4 which have vanquished the Enlightenment and its meta-narratives to the social periphery and reduced society to a matter of money, profit and “the logic of maximum performance”.5 That is, maximum performance in achieving maximum power and maximum capitalist profitability across everyday life and across socio-economic existence, pertaining to a select few who are so lucky to exemplify the logic of capitalism in all its opulent splendor.

According to Jean Francois Lyotard, the dissolution and de-legitimization of grand narratives, due to technological progress, which is constantly moving in “the direction [of]…the computerization of society”,6, has meant “a loss of meaning”7 across high-tech western civilization. In effect, the ever-increasing accumulation of techno-scientific knowledge and autonomous technologies has increasingly undermined age old certainties, wherefore, according to Marx, “all fast-frozen relations…are swept away [and] all that is solid melts into air…[whereupon] man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life”,8, bourgeois-money and bourgeois-power, ad infinitum.

In this regard, the capitalist techno-scientific process of creative-destruction; i.e., “the essential fact about capitalism”,9 according to Joseph Schumpeter, has brought with it a sense of demoralization and skepticism, pertaining to all great social and communal aims as everything, everyone, and every technological process increasingly boils down to “optimizing the [capitalist] system’s performance”.10 The fact is that the optimization of capitalist performance, invariably, always revolves around maximizing capitalist profit and capitalist power at the expense of other possible performance objectives, which are brutally cast aside. The result is that bourgeois-capitalism incessantly produces an “atmosphere of almost universal hostility to its own social order”.11 In effect, capitalism, through its constant mechanism of creative-destruction manufactures “an atmosphere of hostility [that] decomposes the… forces of capitalism from within”,12 undermining the very mode of production that capitalism relies upon, namely, the capitalist mode of production, which is the capital/labor relation fused to certain forces of production.

Like Schumpeter, for Lyotard, “capitalism…cannot exist without a [constant] shattering of belief and without…the lack of [firm] reality”,13 due to the fact that bourgeois-capitalism requires a certain amount of vacuity, both mental and physical, in order to establish its own capitalist realities. These capitalist realities are artificially constructed in order to maximize capitalist profits, capitalist power, and establish capitalism as best and most legitimate socio-economic system in the eyes of the general-population. The point, for bourgeois-capitalism, is to encourage nihilism in and across everyday life; i.e., “the conviction of the [unattainability] of… [universal] values [which seeds]…the idea of valueless-ness [and] meaninglessness…[across] existence”,14 resulting in an opportunity for capitalist commodities to fill the void manifested by this nihilism. However, this manufactured nihilism, according to Schumpeter, simultaneously manifests a universal hostility towards capitalism in the sense that “after having destroyed the moral authority of so many other [non-capitalist] institutions, [capitalism] … turns against its own [institutions]”15 which erode the meta-narratives of the Enlightenment; i.e., the very faith in the supremacy of bourgeois-state-capitalism.

Consequently, according to Lyotard, capitalist-techno-science reduces, and continuously reduces, human existence to a series of power “moves” founded on the accumulation of wealth, influence, and increased performativity, all of which destroy grand-narratives and produce nihilism as an after-effect. In fact, for Lyotard, nihilism results from this breaking up of the grand narratives [which leads to] the dissolution of the social bond and the disintegration of social aggregates into a mass of individual atoms thrown into [constant]…motion. [Whereupon], each [individualist atom now] exists in a fabric of relations that is now more complex and mobile than ever before. [In fact,] young or old, man or woman, rich or poor, …is [now] always located at nodal points of specific communication circuits, however tiny these may be. [The point is,]…to improve…[systemic, capitalist] performance.16

With every technological intrusion and amelioration across everyday life, the sum of socio-economic existence is atomized to its smallest units possible. Wherefore, belief in anything transcendent is shattered and “the goal is no longer truth, but performativity”,17 namely, the maximization of profit and power in the hands of a select few, which compose the upper-echelons of the capitalist-system. The only life-line offered by bourgeois-capitalism, after the dissolution of meta-narratives, according to Lyotard, is an empty-transcendence offered through the consumption of commodities, which in the end, exacerbate the prevalent feeling of emptiness pervading the stratums of everyday life. As a result, “the only credible goal [becomes] power”.17

Technology reduces socio-economic existence and everyday life to means/ends rationality; i.e., the functional imperative, which focuses on the maximization of power and capital, where “the question… now asked by…the State, [people,] or institutions…is no longer is it true, but, what use is it?…[and] is it saleable?…[that is] is it efficient?”18 This reductive process brought about via technological progress, means that “we no longer have recourse to grand-narratives. We can resort neither to the dialectic of spirit nor even to the emancipation of humanity as [our] validation [for anything]”.19 Everything, every process, becomes a matter of maximizing power and money, “the social system [is] conceived as a totality in quest of its most performative unity possible”.20 And, like cogs in a machine, humans are utilized to ameliorate the system’s performativity. As Lyotard states, “the [capitalist] system seems to be a vanguard machine dragging humanity after it, dehumanizing it in order to re-humanize it at a different level of [socio-economic] capacity, [via managing] technocrats”,20 which administrate “individuals [to] want what the [capitalist] system needs in order to perform well”.21

Granted, the Enlightenment grand-narratives of social emancipation and spirit; i.e., the quest for absolute knowledge and freedom, have faded and lost credibility, as Lyotard argues, but, nonetheless, the Enlightenment grand-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism persists and, in fact, has filled the void left behind by these other Enlightenment grand-narratives.  According to Lyotard, the “post-modern [is]…the condition of…no regulating [universal] ideal”,22 yet, this is not the case in the sense that the Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism has become the new universal ideal, determining the direction of high-tech western civilization. Indeed, the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism enables the domination of certain capitalist judgments and capitalist criterions, which continue to establish bourgeois social norms and capitalist existential standards across the stratums of everyday life on behalf of the old grand-narratives of the Enlightenment. As Lyotard states, with sleight of hand, “capitalism…disguises its ‘realism’ under the idea of an emancipation from poverty”,23 wherefore, once again, the Enlightenment meta-narrative of human emancipation is covertly reintroduced via a new guise, which establishes “the [Enlightenment] economic genre…[as] universal criterion”.24 The result is that the universal “tribunal of capitalism’s…verdict [is] always pronounced in favor of [money and power]”,25 namely, bourgeois-money and capitalist power.

Moreover, the sensus communis; i.e., the sense of community, which Lyotard states has disappeared across high-tech western civilization due to the dissolution of the grand-narratives of social emancipation and Spirit, is reintroduced via the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, which imposes a new social bond on social relations founded on systemic performativity, bourgeois-money, and capitalist power. This forceful intrusion of bourgeois-capitalism, on behalf of the Enlightenment, annuls Lyotard’s post-modern notion of any federation of infinite, incommensurable micro-narratives, interacting with each other, devoid of overarching logic. Indeed, undermining his own argument, Lyotard readily states:

The economic genre [of bourgeois-capitalism has] hegemony over the others, [it] can …put on the garb of an emancipatory philosophy of history, [imposing the idea of] more wealth. The economic genre of capital in no way requires… [to] admit…heterogeneity.  To the contrary, it requires the suppression of that heterogeneity.25

Lyotard seems to be perpetrating a ruse in the sense that he is arguing for two simultaneous positions, which are, in fact, dialectically opposing positions. That is, Lyotard is simultaneously arguing that the heterogeneity of micro-narratives, devoid of any unifying principles and/or meta-narratives, is the new condition of socio-economic existence, found across western high-tech. civilization, while simultaneously arguing that bourgeois-capitalism holds hegemony over all these incommensurable micro-narratives across western high-tech civilization. In fact, Lyotard readily states that the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism suppresses the sum of heterogeneous narratives, phrases and/or language-games, in favor of maximum performance, maximum power and maximum capital, which directly contradicts his idea of the prevalence of post-modernity, plurality, and the fact that there are no longer universal criterions to base judgments upon.

Although Lyotard states that we need not concern ourselves too much about the encroachment of the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism since bourgeois-capitalist “bureaucratization is [merely an] outer limit”,26 there is still  an application of force being applied to corral incommensurable narratives. As he states, despite the fact that “today…the limits [that any bourgeois-capitalist] institution imposes on…language [and language] ‘moves’ are never established once and for all”,27 micro-narratives continue to be subjugated to the Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism. Basically, Lyotard, brushes aside, with a gentle sleight of hand, the fact that there is still an Enlightenment meta-narrative at work controlling “the flexible networks of language games”.28. He argues that, despite the dominance of the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, its control is soft, pliable, and never truly finalized in the sense that the limits bourgeois-capitalism places onto the strands of micro-narratives are always subject to change, since they are stakes in any confrontation. Nevertheless, by his own admission, Enlightenment meta-narratives continue to influence, control, and impose limits on the plurality, the diversity, and the egalitarianism, inherent within the post-modern condition. Notwithstanding, for Lyotard, the post-modern condition is more or less a condition, exclusively consigned to the upper-echelons of bourgeois-capitalist society; i.e., technocrats and decision-makers, who comprise the most indoctrinated and profit-driven social groupings within bourgeois-capitalist society:

What is a good…utterance, a ‘good’ performance in…technical matters? They are all judged to be ‘good’ because they conform to the relevant [bourgeois-capitalist] criteria (of justice, beauty, truth, and efficiency respectively) accepted in the social circles of [anointed capitalist] knowers.29

These anointed capitalist knowers are chosen by the best proponents of the Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism. These anointed capitalist knowers are the embodiments of the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, meant to spread the gospel of bourgeois-capitalism and befuddle any opposing criterions of judgment that may run contrary to the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism. For Lyotard, the play, the flexibility, and the diversity, expressed in the plurality of micro-narratives, devoid of all meta-narratives, is exclusively consigned to and safeguarded for the upper-echelons of bourgeois-state-capitalism, where the system’s imperative for maximum systemic performance, does not apply. In a similar fashion, Marx always argued that the best exemplars of bourgeois-capitalism never applied the same criteria to themselves which they applied to the workforce/population, in general. As he states “the non-worker does everything against the worker which the worker does against him/herself, but he [or she] does not do against him/herself what he [or she] does against the worker”.30 Meaning, that the best exemplars of the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism hold themselves to a different standard and criteria than the general-population. They solely apply the rigors of the logic of capitalism and optimum performance to the workforce/population, while, excusing themselves from such a criteria and imperative.

Consequently, the bourgeois imperative of optimum capitalist performance is an imperative imposed upon the lower stratums of the capitalist-system, both forcefully and softly, wherefore, the general-population continually has to perform and conform to what “the principle of optimal [capitalist] performance”31 demands and/or commands, without exception. The upper-echelons of bourgeois-capitalism are absolved of this imperative. Their task is to manage western high-tech civilization along the lines of this performance criterion. Specifically, they are exempt from the rigors of this maximum performance imperative. The lot is merely to enjoy the fruits and the luxuries that this performance criterion; i.e., profit-imperative, provides them.

In this regard, the Enlightenment endures through the empty utopian promises of universal bourgeois-capitalism, which as Lyotard states, celebrate a post-modern eclecticism, with an increasing sense of liberty and infinite choice, when in fact, this is not truly the case. It is not the case in the sense that this so-called post-modern eclecticism is without real socio-economic diversity, equality, and linguistic heterogeneity. As always, money talks and money is all that matters, such is the essential imperative lodged inside the grand-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism. In actuality, bourgeois-capitalist-post-modernity is a superficial diversity, equality, and heterogeneity localized primarily in capitalist commodities, which demands that for anyone to participate in this eclectic bourgeois façade and capitalist pageantry, they must possess a certain level of monetary-power. Indeed, Lyotard is correct, when he states:

Postmodern…eclecticism is the degree zero of contemporary general culture: [where] one listens to reggae, watches a western, eats McDonald’s food for lunch and local cuisine for dinner, wears Paris perfume in Tokyo and “retro” clothes in Hong Kong…[and] “anything goes”. The epoch is one of slackening…but this realism of “anything goes” is in fact that of money [where the] criteria…to assess…value [is based on] profits and…purchasing power.32

Insofar, as the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism promises to satisfy all human needs via an incessant celebratory monologue that champions the capitalist marketplace, the catch, or ruse, is the fact that these human needs must first have a certain level of power and money in order to be acknowledged as valid needs, by the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism.

Consequently, the post-modern epoch may be defined as an infinite series of incommensurable language-games and discourses etc., by Lyotard. However, these incommensurable language-games and discourses are, nonetheless, continuously unified and tied together via the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, which through “the exercise of terror…says ‘adapt your aspiration to our [capitalist] ends –or else”.33 The exercise of terror by the Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism, imposes a unifying principle, or profit-imperative, upon the plurality of language-games, discourses and narratives, ultimately, impeding the development, the maturation, and the realization of a post-modernity via the exercise of a certain type of bourgeois-capitalist terrorism. That is, a very real fear, threatening the multiplicity of language-games, narratives, and discourses with imprisonment, unemployment, repression, hunger or worst etc., if there is too much deviation between them and/or between them and bourgeois-capitalism.

In consequence, the despotism imposed by the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism “does not respect the plurality of language-games”,34 but instead, imposes a totalitarian regime upon post-modernity, which distorts, falsifies, and misrepresents its fundamental goal and imperative: pragmatic egalitarianism. That is, a pragmatic egalitarianism, in all shapes and forms, which commands plurality, diversity, and socio-economic parity, in relative equal measure, across all stratums of everyday life for all micro-narratives, language-games, and discourses, regardless of race, gender, class, age or background etc. As a result, the actualization of post-modernity is stifled under the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism. It is cut short. It is asphyxiated in the name of bourgeois-power and bourgeois-money, namely, the last standing grand narrative of the Enlightenment, bourgeois-state-capitalism, which favors those select few that best embody, represent, and exemplify, the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism; i.e., bourgeois-capitalist money and bourgeois-capitalist power.

In fact, Lyotard readily admits in his version of post-modernity, outlined in The Post-modern Condition, that the bourgeois-capitalist “ruling class is and will continue to be the class of decision makers. [Namely] …[that the] composite layer of corporate leaders, high-level administrators and the heads of the major professional, labor, political and religious organizations”,35  will continue to enact judgments and influence in service of the Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism. In this regard, Lyotard puts forward a false-view of post-modernism, that is, a view of post-modernism, which champions plurality, diversity, and egalitarianism while simultaneously still being ruled by a cadre of bourgeois-capitalist aristocrats and technocrats; i.e., a state-finance-corporate aristocracy.

Ultimately, what Lyotard fails to mention is that post-modernity has not fully bloomed; i.e., that it has not gone far enough, insofar as it has yet to realize its raison d’être, egalitarianism, in its full capacity. Post-modernism has not gone far enough due to the fact that the seeming plurality of language-games, discourses, phrases, and micro-narratives pervading everyday life continues to be suppressed under a lingering meta-narrative of the Enlightenment; i.e., bourgeois-capitalism. As Lyotard states, “the price to pay for such…illusions [i.e., meta-narrative] is terror”.36 That is, the forceful application of a set of bourgeois-capitalism criterions, which impede the diversity, the plurality and the equality shared between narratives.  In effect, the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism has filled the void left over by those other obsolete Enlightenment meta-narratives described by Lyotard as the grand-narrative of absolute knowledge and/or the grand-narrative of total human emancipation etc., like them, the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism perpetuates the universal ideals of the Enlightenment.

As a result, despite the “nation-states, parties, professions, institutions, and historical traditions…losing their attraction”,37 like a zombie, the Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism lingers-on and persists in imposing its despotism over all narratives. That is, it persists to fashion “society [into] a unified totality, a unicity …[a] perfectly sealed circle of facts…[that is, a] social whole [programmed] for the optimization of… performance”.38.  Therefore, if post-modernism is to achieve full maturity, it is imperative that all small micro-narratives “wage war on totality [and seek to] activate [and multiply] differences”,39 in every shape and form, so that the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism can finally be utterly nullified.

  1. Jean-Francois Lyotard. The Post-Modern Condition, Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massimo (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984) p. 43.
  2. Michel Luc Bellemare. The Structural-Anarchism Manifesto: (The Logic of Structural Anarchism Versus The Logic of Capitalism), (Montréal: Blacksatin Publications Inc., 2016).
  3. Jean-Francois Lyotard. The Post-Modern Condition, Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massimo (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984) p. 37.
  4. Ibid, p. 37.
  5. Ibid, p. xxxiv.
  6. Ibid, p. 7.
  7. Ibid, p. 26.
  8. Karl Marx. “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, The Marx-Engels Reader, Ed. Robert C. Tucker (New York, New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 1978) p. 476.
  9. Joseph A. Schumpeter. Can Capitalism Survive? (Creative Destruction and The Future of The Global Economy), (New York, New York: Harper & Row, 1950) p. 43.
  10. Jean-Francois Lyotard. The Post-Modern Condition, Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massimo (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984) p. xxiv.
  11. Joseph A. Schumpeter. Can Capitalism Survive? (Creative Destruction and The Future of  The Global Economy), (New York, New York: Harper & Row, 1950) p. 155.
  12. Ibid, p. 191.
  13. Jean-Francois Lyotard. The Post-Modern Condition, Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massimo (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984) p. 77.
  14. Friedrich Nietzsche. The Will To Power, Ed. Walter Kaufmann (New York, New York: Vintage Books, 1967) pp. 9-11.
  15. Joseph A. Schumpeter. Can Capitalism Survive? (Creative Destruction and The Future of The Global Economy), (New York, New York: Harper & Row, 1950) pp. 155-156.
  16. Jean-Francois Lyotard. The Post-Modern Condition, Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massimo (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984) p. 15.
  17. Ibid, p. 46.
  18. Ibid, p. 51.
  19. Ibid, p. 60.
  20. Ibid, p. 63.
  21. Ibid. p. 62
  22. Jean-Francois Lyotard. The Differend: Phrases in Dispute, Trans. Georges Van Den Abbeele (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988) p. 155.
  23. Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean-Loup Thebaud. Just Gaming, Trans. Wlad Godzich (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985) p. 16.
  24. Ibid, p. 177.
  25. Ibid, p. 178.
  26. Jean-Francois Lyotard. The Post-Modern Condition, Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massimo (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984) p. 17.
  27. Ibid, p. 17.
  28. Ibid. 17.
  29. Ibid, p. 19.
  30. Karl Marx. “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844”, The Marx-Engels Reader,Robert C. Tucker (New York, New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 1978) p. 81.
  31. Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Post-Modern Condition, Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massimo (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984) p. 44.
  32. Ibid, p. 76.
  33. Ibid, p. 64.
  34. Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean-Loup Thebaud. Just Gaming, Trans. Wlad Godzich (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985) p. 98.
  35. Jean-Francois Lyotard. The Post-Modern Condition, Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massimo (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984) p. 14.
  36. Ibid, p. 81,
  37. Ibid, p. 14.
  38. Ibid, p. 12.
  39. Ibid, p. 82.

Post-Modernism Does Not Go Far Enough!

Post-modernism does not go far enough. It has not overturned all meta-narratives and fully established its essence, that is, a multiplicity of micro-narratives, achieved through a radical “incredulity toward metanarratives”.1 Consequently, post-modernism has yet to realize the post-modern society, that is, a patchwork federation of localized, decentralized and horizontalized micro-institutions, founded on a litany of microscopic, ideational-comprehensive-frameworks, where no-one fully dominates and terrorizes over the others. If post-modernism can be defined as a socio-economic framework where “there are no criteria”,2 where “there is no longer any…[overarching] system of rules”,3 and where “there is no [universal] sensus communis”,4 then, post-modernism has only partially succeeded. The reason being that the Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism continues to weave all the seemingly, independent micro-narratives, or language-games, together, into a cohesive whole within a totalitarian bourgeois-capitalist dominion.

In effect, the Enlightenment meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism homogenizes and unifies the diversity and the multiplicity of micro-narratives into a totality. That is, a totality which post-modernism seeks to abolish and/or overturn. As a result, post-modernism has not realized its raison d’être; i.e., “a federation of municipalities, cooperatives and autonomous-collectives. That is, a plurality sharing, in egalitarian fashion, decision-making-authority, ownership, knowledge, and the sum of capital”,5 where “all… positions [or narratives] are equivalent”6 and no-one micro-narrative “imposes itself upon the others, [and] sets itself up as dominant…[while] reducing…multiplicity to silence”.7 So, the reason, this patchwork federation has not come about is that post-modernism has not pushed itself to the Nth degree. Namely, it has not activated its pragmatic methodology, pragmatic deconstruction; i.e., that “imaginative activism…used in various [manners for]…de-sedimentation”8, namely, the physical and mental deconstruction of the grand-institutional structures, which have grown out of and enshrined the various Enlightenment meta-narratives within their constitutions and daily operations.

Post-modernism has interpreted the world, but it has not sought to truly change it, that is, to act upon its conclusions with a certain pluralized authority. Therefore, the result has been both a refortification of the Enlightenment and its modern hierarchies, and a furthering of the convoluted minutia of arbitrary rules and regulations designed to maintain a bourgeois aristocracy and an outdated, bourgeois-capitalist status quo, which, in fact, today, impedes intellectual and material advancements. In effect, these sets of arbitrary bourgeois rules and regulations have no actual validity and are solely designed to enforce an outdated bourgeois-capitalist status quo, through a litany of irrational divisions, which serve no other purpose other than impeding intellectual and material advancement, because these advancements embody and promote collectivism, egalitarianism, and the overthrow of the capitalist-hierarchical status quo. Today, any “grand-narrative has lost its credibility”9, yet the grand-narrative of bourgeois-state-capitalism, as socio-economic savior, continues to persist and weave the litany of independent micro-narratives into a cohesive totality by force, by money and by machination.

Notwithstanding, after post-modernism there is no valid, or legitimate, arguments for not establishing financial equality, collectivism, and total social egalitarianism, due to the fact that “there is not a single—logic—that underlies all…domains”,10, meaning that all micro-narratives have legitimate claim to resources, moreover, including the fact that such an egalitarian redistribution of resources would in actuality maximize opportunities for intellectual and material advancement. Bourgeois-capitalism and bourgeois-ideology impede the intellectual and material advancement of the human species because bourgeois-capitalism and bourgeois-ideology “silence people…forbidding them to speak [if they are not bourgeois-capitalist]. As a result knowledge and knowledge production [is not]…free”.11 It is curtailed within a bourgeois-capitalist framework, which excludes many participants and points of views, due to their anti-bourgeois and anti-capitalist tendencies.

After post-modernism, there is no such thing as the legitimate ownership of capital, money and/or private property, as in actuality, everyone has legitimate claim in relative equal measure, upon all property, all capital, and all money, and moreover, should all have access, in relative equal measure, to all property, all capital and all money etc., due to the fact that, “knowledge is obtained by a multiplicity of views rather from the determined application of a preferred ideology”.12  That is, because “there is no meta-language…[which can] ground political and ethical decisions”,13 then, all micro-narratives, or micro-languages, have legitimate claim, in relative equal measure, upon all socio-economic resources within society, due to the fact that there is no legitimate, rightful, universalized position for equitable judgments, that is, “there is no stable system to guide [and legitimize] judgments”.2. Hence, the counter-point is to encourage, promote, and build a plurality; i.e., “a complex and heterogeneous historical process [and framework]”14 which will maximize intellectual and material advancement by permitting equal access to all socio-economic resources in relative equal measure. Increasingly, it is evident that this vital heterogeneity, which can maximize intellectual and material advancement, demands the overthrow of bourgeois-capitalism and bourgeois-ideology, due to the fact that “a free society…cannot be based on any particular creed”,15 that is, it cannot be based on overarching domination of bourgeois-capitalism and bourgeois-ideology.

If all micro-narratives have equal claim to resources because there is no overarching, universal, timeless truth and meta-narrative by which to judge, and if many active micro-narratives means maximum intellectual and material advancement, then any individual claim to segments of private property, capital, knowledge and money, as somehow rightfully belonging to a singular individual and/or any small oligarchical group, is moot, illegitimate, irrational, and fundamentally counter-productive to intellectual and material advancement. If “there is no common measure”16 by which to allocate resources, legitimately, justly, and fairly, and according to the post-modern point of view, there is no such common measure, then every micro-narrative and individual has legitimate claim to all socio-economic resources in relative equal measure, due to the fact that there is no underlying verity by which to deny resources for some and not others, and due to the fact that any unequal allocation of socio-economic resources impedes intellectual and material advancement.

Ultimately, all the bourgeois-capitalist canons; i.e., private property, individualism, hierarchy, greed and profiteering etc., are fictions, phantasms imposed upon society, illegitimately, both to impede its collective development and truncate its population, to keep it enslaved, both materially and intellectually, in confusion, delusion, nonsense and poverty, against its will and against its better nature. That is, its better nature being, namely, egalitarianism, monetary equality, collectivism and the sharing of resources, in relative equal measure. Consequently, in line with Jean-Francois Lyotard, the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism is maintained, expanded and traversed with terror “the exercise of terror…[commanding all to] adapt your aspirations to our ends—or else”.17 Bourgeois-capitalism is totalitarian in nature, “it is unjust…[its] majority does not mean large number, it means great fear”,18 fear in all its forms, such as “imprisonment, unemployment, repression, hunger, anything you want”19 in the sense that the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism “does not respect…plurality”,20 but only its version of unicity.

As a result, any bourgeois-institution or dominance hierarchy which disseminates, endorses and/or promotes individualism, capitalism, hierarchy, selfishness, private property and ironclad unity, is fundamentally anti-advancement, and, in fact, willingly participates in impeding intellectual and material advancement; i.e., the betterment of the human species. Therefore, any such bourgeois-institution, or dominance hierarchy, should be utterly deconstructed, destroyed and/or abolished, on the valid and legitimate premise that these bourgeois-institutions and dominance hierarchies impeded intellectual and material advancement for the greatest number, by limiting access to socio-economic resources. That is, by the very fact, these bourgeois-institutions deny, stifle and impede intellectual and material advancement and all rightful legitimate claims by the multiplicity of micro-narratives for collectivism, egalitarianism, and equality in the allocation of socio-economic resources.

The point, ultimately, is to reconstruct these outdated, senile bourgeois-institutions along collectivist, decentralist, horizontalist, and anti-capitalist forms of socio-economic organization. Based on the fact that because there are no legitimate meta-narratives and/or universal truth-claims, any bourgeois-institution, or dominance hierarchy, which states otherwise and/or acts otherwise, is in actuality working against intellectual and material advancement and the democratic multiplicity of micro-narratives. These outdated, senile, bourgeois-institutions and dominance hierarchies are impeding socio-economic and intellectual development. These anti-advancement bourgeois-institutions and dominance hierarchies are impeding development due to the fact that they are working against — and in contradiction of — socio-economic plurality, that is, the basic factum that progress and “knowledge need a plurality of ideas”21 in order to achieve maximum penetration and development. And, the fact that to achieve maximum intellectual and material development requires the redistribution of socio-economic resources to everyone and every micro-narrative in relative equal measure.

Therefore, these senile, bourgeois-institutions and dominance hierarchies are categorically ripe for pragmatic deconstruction, that is, a type of material deconstruction, which is valid on the premise that there are no acceptable, valid reasons and arguments for the promotion of individual private-ownership, individual property, individual wealth, and financial inequality, on the basis that these bourgeois-capitalist principles impede the intellectual and material advancement of our species by severely limiting plurality and diversity; i.e., the necessary plurality and diversity needed for maximum intellectual and material advancement.

Consequently, this rampant bourgeois-homogeneity and push towards a totalizing bourgeois-unicity, we currently see across western bourgeois-capitalist societies and within bourgeois-institutions, bourgeois-media, bourgeois-law, bourgeois-politics, bourgeois-academia etc., is purging these domains of variation, difference, and alternative points of views, which, according to Feyerabend, “is to be expect in [bourgeois] totalitarian surroundings”.22  Such purges of variation, difference, and alternative points of views across the senile institutions of bourgeois-state-capitalism are primarily perpetrated via terror, both psychological and real, that is, by force, a force derived from an unstated ultimatum, “say or do this, or else you’ll never speak [in this domain] again”.23 This is a form of violence, “by laws, by peer pressure and by financial machinations”24 etc., which have gradually drained, stopped, and eliminated all plurality in points of views from any decision-making-authority and position of power. The result has been the impediment of intellectual and material advancement in the name of an outdated, senile, bourgeois-capitalist status quo, which is increasingly ossifying itself into hierarchical rigidity, drastic financial inequality and socio-economic stagnation.

Subsequently, any bourgeois-institution, which is constructed and designed to propagate and maintain an outdated, senile, bourgeois-capitalist status quo, at the expense of intellectual and material advancement, should be radically deconstructed, destroyed and/or abolished on the very basis that these bourgeois-institutions and dominance hierarchies prevent intellectual and material development by denying collectivism, egalitarianism and equal access for all. That is, bourgeois rules and regulations should be defied, smashed, and broken at every turn due to the fundamental fact that these institutional bourgeois rules and regulations impeded intellectual and material advancement in the name of private property, individualism, bourgeois hierarchy and bourgeois money. These bourgeois rules and regulations should be usurped, including the bourgeois-institutions and hierarchies based on them, because these bourgeois rules and regulations are simply in place to sustain a divisive, out of date, bourgeois-capitalist status quo at the expense of genuine socio-economic plurality, advancement, and betterment. The basis for such a vast pragmatic deconstruction of bourgeois-institutions is the fact that “there is no ontology…[and] no [underlying] rules”25; we have no basic universal guideline to live by, thus, to limit decision-making-authority strictly to a minority comprised in a small, tightly-knit, bourgeois-capitalist status quo and aristocracy, is detrimental to the survival of society and the advancement of the human species.

According to Paul Feyerabend, “language can be bent in many directions…[because] understanding does not depend on any particular set of rules”;26 as a result, “a single…world-view is going too far”.27 It impedes intellectual and material advancement since these bourgeois rules and regulations deny collectivism, egalitarianism, and accessibility; i.e., the very essence of intellectual and material advancement, which is grounded in diversity and plurality. These bourgeois rules and regulations should be pragmatically deconstructed, destroyed and/or abolished, beyond any ability to re-establish these bourgeois impediments which hinder advancement and egalitarianism. Because, as Feyerabend states, “interesting possibilities are removed [when institutions] firmly [insist] on the status quo”,28 while denying the existence of all viable progressive exceptions; i.e., diversity, plurality and multiplicity.

What does this mean? This means that all institutions or dominance hierarchies should be horizontally reconstructed so as to permit maximum participation in decision-making-authority by as many micro-narratives and/or individual subjectivities as possible as “knowledge needs a plurality of ideas”.16  Consequently, bourgeois-politics, bourgeois-law, bourgeois-education, bourgeois-media etc., should be radically opened-up to radical plurality, diversity and multiplicity. Namely, a litany of point of views and collectives, each with an equal amount of decision-making-authority, unencumbered by rigid rules and regulations, able to fashion and refashion rules, regulations and institutions at will pending on the situation. In effect, we can only “be just, case by case”,29 guided by the idea of maintaining plurality so that democracy, participation and accessibility is fully maximized and spread over as many micro-narratives and individuals as possible.

This means that the federal bourgeois-state-apparatus should be abolished, destroyed and pragmatically deconstructed due to the fact that it only acknowledges, promotes, and positions select members of the upper-echelons of bourgeois-capitalism within its hierarchy of decision-making-authority. Moreover, this means that bourgeois-law should be abolished, destroyed and pragmatically deconstructed due to the fact that bourgeois-law only cherishes bourgeois forms of existence; i.e., individualism, bourgeois-property, bourgeois-money, bourgeois-hierarchy and bourgeois capital etc., at the expense of the majority of micro-narratives that traverse across the workforce/population. Finally, this means that bourgeois-education should be abolished, destroyed and pragmatically deconstructed because the majority of bourgeois-education instructs and promotes bourgeois obedience, bourgeois consciousness, bourgeois hierarchy, bourgeois arbitrary rules and regulations. All of which impede intellectual and material advancement by denying a multiplicity of valid perspectives and points of views, by which to develop new knowledges, technologies and new solutions, all on account that these perspectives and points of views break with the bourgeois-capitalist status quo. As Feyerabend states, “humans cannot have complete knowledge. There are too many things, too many events, too many situations”,30 as a result, any intellectual and material advancement of knowledge and life must permit the participation of “many different maps of reality”31 within decision-making-authority in order to maximize the possibility of advancements. And, any bourgeois-institution, which run contrary to this demand for plurality, which by this definition is all institutions serving bourgeois-capitalism, are in violation of the primary imperative of the human species. That is, the innate biological imperative and drive, housed in the species, commanding an “overall mastery and comprehension of phenomena”,32 as soon as possible.

For this reason, bourgeois-education and, in general, bourgeois-institutions need to be opened-up to variation, with loose rules and regulations, designed to maximize democracy, participation and accessibility. For bourgeois-education, this means loose standards and criterions pertaining to the completion of degrees and educational competences. In effect, the plurality of multi-varied individuals and micro-narratives must be allowed to enter and exit, at will, the post-bourgeois-capitalist-university without set time-limits. These multi-varied individuals and micro-narratives must be permitted to change and collage courses and educational disciplines at will in order to attain their degrees.

Nothing must impede intellectual and material development in the sense that as Feyerabend states “there are many ways of ordering the world”33 and each must be given the opportunity to democratically participate in the intellectual and material advancement of our species. Limiting accessibility and allocation of socio-economic resources in relative equal measure for the greatest number ultimately limits opportunities, capabilities and possibilities for intellectual and material advancement. In short, clinging to the bourgeois-capitalist way of life is increasingly clarifying the basic fact that this mode of existence is inhibiting intellectual and material development because it denies contributions by the vast majority who are forced decision-making-authority in the name of bourgeois-hierarchy and a bourgeois-capitalist status quo.  The crux of intellectual and material advancement requires collectivism, egalitarianism and maximum accessibility for all, which is exactly what is being suppressed by the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism. That is, “liberty is full only at the moment when the power of the representatives [of bourgeois-state-capitalism] is suspended and given back to the represented, [i.e., the people]”.34 Only then, is plurality, diversity and accessibility capable of being fully realized, which includes the prospect for maximum intellectual and material advancement.

All told, all standards and criterions must be made ultra-flexible, ultra-adaptable, and ultra-democratic so as to maximize open-participatory-democracy and decision-making-authority across a maximum number of people living, existing, and accessing the post-bourgeois-capitalist-university and, in general, post-bourgeois-capitalist-institutions. The point is to accommodate the variability of people and narratives entering and living through the post-bourgeois-capitalist-university and, in general, post-bourgeois-capitalist-institutions because knowledge “is not one tradition, it is many”35 and the maximization of accessibility by all sorts of different people and narratives leads to the maximization of mastery and comprehension over phenomena. The point is to accommodate maximum variability, plurality and participation at all levels of the post-bourgeois-capitalist-university and, in general, post-bourgeois-capitalist-institutions, due to the fact that, in actuality, there are no “universal measures of excellence”;36 as a result, the more points of views participating in decision-making-authority, the more chances of intellectual and material advancement. The point is to facilitate, enable, and accelerate intellectual and material advancement, by removing as many barriers as possible to intellectual and material development, meaning the dissolution of the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism.

In sum, bourgeois-capitalism, the last meta-narrative of the Enlightenment, and all its individual tenets, such as individualism, bourgeois-hierarchy etc., must be jettisoned and abandoned at all levels of human existence, at all levels of everyday life and at all levels of education, law, politics, and institutions etc., because bourgeois-capitalism impedes intellectual and material advancement, by denying the tenets for maximum intellectual and material advancement. That is, the tenets of collectivism, egalitarianism and accessibility for all, in relative equal measure; therefore, nothing bourgeois, or capitalist, must survive the consequences of pragmatic deconstruction. Absolutely nothing! As bourgeois-capitalism must be reduced to its rightful place and its true legitimate position, as just another perspective, way of life, and mode of production, consumption, and distribution, among many:

No invention is ever made in isolation, and no idea is, therefore, completely without (abstract or empirical) support….then the step back [from unicity into plurality] is a step forward,…away from the tyranny of tightly-knit, highly corroborated, [collusionary bourgeois-capitalist] systems.37

Such a move is a step-forward, a step towards maximization, diversity and equality for the greatest number. It is a step-forward into an open-participatory-democracy devoid of class-divisions, race-divisions, gender-divisions etc., in service of collectivism, egalitarianism and maximum accessibility for the greatest number.

Therefore, only when post-modernism attains its nth degree and becomes fully pragmatic; i.e., a pragmatic application of deconstruction, will the last stains of the meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism be wiped clean from all senile, modern institutions.  Only when post-modernism becomes fully radicalized, and pushes through the remaining meta-narrative of bourgeois-capitalism haunting civil society will the essence of post-modernity realize itself with maximum clarity. Then, will we be finally free of the tyranny of bourgeois-unicity and be “given [real] equal rights, equal access to education and…[real] positions of power”38 as post-modernism is incomplete and demands its essentiality, namely, plurality, equality and accessibility for the greatest number, ASAP!

  1. Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Post-Modern Condition, Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984) p. xxiv.
  2. Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean-Loup Thebaud, Just Gaming, Trans. Wlad Godzich (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985) p. 16.
  3. Ibid, p. 9.
  4. Ibid, p. 14.
  5. Michel Luc Bellemare, The Structural-Anarchism Manifesto: (The Logic of Structural-Anarchism Versus The Logic of Capitalism), (Montréal: Blacksatin Publications Inc., 2016) 25.b).
  6. Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean-Loup Thebaud, Just Gaming, Trans. Wlad Godzich (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985) p. 74.
  7. Ibid, p. 102.
  8. Jacque Derrida, Of Grammatology, Trans. Gayatri Spivak (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016) p. 350.
  9. Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Post-Modern Condition, Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984) p. 37.
  10. Paul Feyerabend, Against Method. (London: Verso, 1975) p. 202.
  11. Ibid, p. 127.
  12. Ibid, p. 32.
  13. Ibid, p. 105.
  14. Ibid, p. 28.
  15. Paul Feyerabend, Against Method. (London: Verso, 1975) p. 238.
  16. Ibid, p. 132.
  17. Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean-Loup Thebaud, Just Gaming, Trans. Wlad Godzich (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985) p. 50.
  18. Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Post-Modern Condition, Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984) p. 64.
  19. Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean-Loup Thebaud, Just Gaming, Trans. Wlad Godzich (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985) p. 99.
  20. Ibid, p. 99.
  21. Ibid, p. 98.
  22. Paul Feyerabend, Against Method. (London: Verso, 1975) p. 138.
  23. Ibid, p. 138.
  24. Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Post-Modern Condition, Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984) p. 46.
  25. Paul Feyerabend, Against Method. (London: Verso, 1975)  p. 195.
  26. Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean-Loup Thebaud, Just Gaming, Trans. Wlad Godzich (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985) p. 65.
  27. Paul Feyerabend, Against Method. (London: Verso, 1975) p. 257.
  28. Ibid, p. 245.
  29. Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean-Loup Thebaud, Just Gaming, Trans. Wlad Godzich (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985) p. 53.
  30. Paul Feyerabend, Against Method. (London: Verso, 1975) p. 205.
  31. Ibid, p. 256.
  32. Michel Luc Bellemare, Treatise on Logical Reason, (Montréal: Blacksatin Publications Inc., 2017) 5.g).
  33. Paul Feyerabend, Against Method. (London: Verso, 1975) p. 166.
  34. Jacque Derrida, Of Grammatology, Trans. Gayatri Spivak (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016) p. 323.
  35. Paul Feyerabend, Against Method. (London: Verso, 1975) p. 242.
  36. Ibid, p. 223.
  37. Ibid, p. 116.
  38. Ibid, p. 238.