Post-ChronicLunaism

[[File:Awaj.png]] Anarchy [[File:Anin.png]]
I’ve stopped seeing anarchism as a system or a goal to achieve. Anarchy means simply “without a ruler”. If you live without obeying the law, state, bosses, and all other authority, isn’t that already anarchy? As long as the state exists, I will not act in total obedience of it. In situations where I do act according to the laws of the state, it is because it aligns with my interests—going to jail or getting killed by cops is not in my interests.

[[File:ConSoc.png]] The Old Left [[File:Distributist.png]] [[File:Patcon.png]]
Bob Black defines the Old Left as a movement stressing “discipline, sacrifice, hard work, monogamy, technological progress, heterosexuality, moralism, a sober and orderly if not downright puritanical lifestyle, and the sub- ordination of the personal (“selfishness”) to the interest of the cause and the group (be it the party, the union or the affinity group)”. This certainly applies to the self-proclaimed Old Leftists on this wiki. But most of them are debatably leftist. The modern definition of leftism generally refers to those opposed to capitalism and other economic systems that preserve private property. The problem is that most of them are not opposed to private ownership of the means of production. Many of them seem to be welfarists or distributists, who want to preserve private property. Maybe since they’re self-described Old (emphasis on old) Leftists, maybe they use the original definition of leftism. The left and right-wing divide in politics emerged during the French Revolution. In the Estates General, those opposed to monarchy sat on the left. This is where another problem emerges. They (the Old Leftists of PCB wiki) seemingly don’t oppose monarchism too much, associating with the likes of Kaiser (who seek a return of monarchy). One of them is even a monarchist it seems. The Old Leftists of this wiki would likely state they put class issues above cultural issues. This seems false, considering many of them would likely align with fascists (who are only friends of the working class in rhetoric) just because they’re opposed to whatever “woke-ism” is. I’ll expand and edit this section as time goes on, this is just a starting point.

[[File:Neoliberal-icon.png]] Societies of Control [[File:Sec.png]]
I recommend reading the actual essay over the very brief summary I’ll be writing here, so here’s the link.  Different systems of domination have existed since the birth of civilization. With the rise of industrial capitalism came the societies of discipline. It revolved around physical confinement (in the factory, school, etc.) as a means of domination and conditioning. The rise of neoliberalism led to a new system of domination, which Deleuze referred to as societies of control. One may ask something like “what exactly is a society of control?” Deleuze theorized that with the advancement of technology (which corresponded with the rise of neoliberalism), a new system of domination emerged. In some ways the societies of control stand in stark contrast to the societies of discipline. While the societies of discipline revolved around confinement, the societies of control revolved around freedom of movement. This doesn’t mean the individual is more free in a society of control. Due to how decentralized and complex the control society is, it is more difficult to revolt against, with Deleuze comparing disciplinary societies and control societies to the burrows molehill and the coils of a snake respectively. People are less likely to attempt revolt too. Deleuze states that young people “strangely boast of being ‘motivated’; they re-request apprenticeships and permanent training.” W.I.P.

[[File:Statesoc.png]] Argument Against AES [[File:Marxflag.png]]
Read the first two lines of Capital.

[[File:Reactlib.png]] Reactionary Liberalism: Oxymoronic? [[File:Monkeyzz-Enlightenment.png]]
Now let’s define what is meant by “reactionary”. If we define it as opposition to the Enlightenment, then the idea of “reactionary liberalism” seems quite oxymoronic. Liberalism is a product of Enlightenment era philosophy. The contradiction is obvious. The same thing can be said about “reactionary socialism”. The various proto-socialist and utopian socialist movements had similar origins to liberalism; both being influenced by the Enlightenment and bearing an opposition to feudalism and monarchy. If you define reactionary as an extreme form of conservatism, then sure, reactionary liberalism could exist. Some early political and philosophical proponents of conservatism—such as Hume and Burke—were also liberals.

Relationships
This is based off of ideology, not personalities

Very Based

 * - Best user after me.
 * [[File:Ultro.png]] Ultrōneism - We both act in our own interest.

Based

 * [[File:TIMUAAAism.png]] ThisIsMyUsernameAAAism - Average ancom.
 * [[File:SituBlart.png]] Situation-Blartism - Based; but I don’t know how to feel about syndicalism or communism.
 * [[File:Anbun.png]] Anarcho-Buniism - Kind of interesting, a little wacky tho.

More Spooked Than A Haunted House

 * [[File:R-i.png]] Neo-Bannnedism - Literally the worst ideology on the wiki. There’s not a single good thing about this.