Create a new article
Write your page title here:
We currently have 6,451 articles on Polcompball Anarchy Wiki. Type your article name above or create one of the articles listed here!

    Polcompball Anarchy Wiki

    Just so you know, this is here for archival purposes only as I, sundog, no longer believe this.

    "History itself haunts modern society like a specter, pseudo-histories have to be concocted at every level of life-consumption in order to preserve the threatened equilibrium of the present frozen time."
    - Guy Debord



    • Communism
    • Technological Enhancements for all conscious beings with the goal of making people self-sustaining systems
    • Realizing the Architectural Body
    • Decoupling Life and Lebenswille
    • Transcending the quantification of self[4]
    • Post-Scarcity
    • Post-Civilization


    • Councils
    • Conflict Democracy
    • E-Democracy
    • Condorcet Elections
    • Weighted Democracy


    • Revolution
    • Councils
    • Radical Environmentalism
    • Self-Liberation


    • Anti-Ideology
    • Critical Theory


    • As I said my beliefs are subject to change, so are these.


    Barbaric Socialism






    • Closest Matches:
    1. Council Communism (99.6%) (Wowie! Who could have guessed!)
    2. Eco-Socialism (99.5%)
    3. Camattism (99.3%)
    4. Neozapatismo (99.2%)
    5. Communalism (99.0%)
    6. Anarcho-Communism (98.7%)
    7. Mao-Spontex (98.6%)
    8. Eco-Anarchism (98.6%)
    9. Degrowth Movement (98.5%)
    10. Left-Communism (98.4%)

    • Farthest Matches
    1. Landian Accelerationism (0.0%)
    2. Hoppeanism (9.0%)
    3. Korwinism (11.9%)


    • some of these will be bullet points some will be paragraph thingies expect it to change this is just my current understanding which i will certainly ameliorate as i read more shit


    Ideology and Autonomy

    "Once ideology-the abstract will to universality and the illusion associated with that will-is legitimized by the universal abstraction and the effective dictatorship of illusion that prevail in modern society, it is no longer a voluntaristic struggle of the fragmentary, but its triumph. At that point, ideological pretensions take on a sort of flat, positivistic precision: they no longer represent historical choices, they are assertions of undeniable facts. In such a context, the particular names of ideologies tend to disappear. The specifically ideological forms of system-supporting labor are reduced to an "epistemological base" that is itself presumed to be beyond ideology. Materialized ideology has no name, just as it has no formulatable historical agenda. Which is another way of saying that the history of different ideologjes is over." - Guy Debord

    • I will generally use the words Ideology and Site (a category i.e, a universe of discourse with objects and directed relations ‘morphisms’ between those objects that satisfies associativity) interchangably since we are not discussing any Sites that are not ideological really (and if there ever is any mentioned I will make sure to be explicit in the fact it it not ideological).
    • What is real exerts influence on something outside itself.
    • Ideology is marked by a will-to-universality, which is the origin of fascism and totalitarianism.
    • Autonomous Sites, i.e, Autonomous Ideology, requires two things: Autonomy in respect to other Sites, and Autonomy from that which it’s terms signify, which is thus a hyperreality.
    • Autonomous Sites of Governance, i.e, Sites around Biopower/Cybernetics achieve their hyperreality via Spectacle.
    • Due to the fact Autonomous Ideology is Autonomous from both other Sites and from the objects it’s terms reference, it has no reality except in itself. The isolated development of Autonomous Sites forms only irreal self-knowledge of their respective discourses.
    • Sites can be thought of like organisms, forming complex inner conceptual structures and developing them like a biological organism does. I don’t know if this makes it conscious and it is irrelevant to my points.
    • When a discourse is Autonomous in respect to other Sites (but not necessarily from the signification of it’s own terms) it will become self-bound and reach a maximum level of vertical complexity. An organism must interact with other organisms with complex social behavior (here, interdisciplinary behavior) for it to develop. Take the wasp as an example of this but for a biological rather than discourse-based organism. It’s brain is millions of times smaller than ours (roughly, in terms of neurons) but it complexifies to a degree where it is able to perform transitive inference, which I remind you is on the 8th stage of vertical complexity in the model of hierarchical complexity and thus learnt by humans around the 5-7 year old mark. Complex social behavior and complex labor demands are directly responsible for this.[5]
    • WIP

    Bich why u so fugin stupid this ain't an ideology

    • Okay, so some of you can't seem to read, I'm going to make it very clear what the difference between ideologies and belief systems that are not is, using the terms Debord used. Namely, ideology is a "fragment"(partial belief system) posing as totalitarian, whereas in contrast non-ideological belief systems are again fragments but instead seeking to faithfully engage with other belief systems. So what's the difference again? Well, I say it like this: Totalitarianism represents other belief systems, and moreover this representation is a trivializing force that reduces complexities in the other system without giving them any faithful engagement, whereas a non-ideological force engages with other belief systems in a non-trivial way- also, the difference could be likened to the difference between quotation and détournement as a citation method, which I'll write about later because I'm lazy.
    • Another difference between ideology and not is also explained by Mas'ud Zavarzadeh's idea of a "Pedagogy of Totality". A Pedagogy of Totality is the name given by Zavarzadeh to a more faithful pedagogy in contrast to contemporary pedagogy, to reinforce my connection between Zavarzadeh's pedagogical concepts here and ideology in general is verified by the fact Zavarzadeh LITERALLY says that contemporary pedagogy is more ideology than actual pedagogy[6]. Now, Zavarzadeh says this:

      "Bourgeois pedagogy, in an ideological maneuver concealed as a philosophical questioning of positivism, reduces the ontological to the epistemological and then deconstructs the epistemological as an effect of textual displacement and, in doing so, denies the existence of an objective reality."

    • Notice the 'ideological maneuver' here which is concealed as a "philosophical questioning of positivism"- this is an instantiation of the sublation of the objectivity of class conflict into other purely ideological terms which always benefit the establishment. The concealing is an example of ideological trivializing.
    • So then, this also shows how relativism and its' cultural presence is meant to benefit the ruling class and its' legal apparatus in state power, and meant to crystallize their power further- it has nothing to do with objectivity and subjectivity, and everything to do with power.
    • Zavarzadeh's main fall, however, is failing to realize the connection of these methods to the Soviet Union and its' propoganda, which ultimately did the same thing as Bourgeoisie pedagogy (sublate for the purposes of ideology and the maintenance of the ruling class and its' seizure of state power [the new ruling class had State power, it was the dictatorship of the ruling class- which was not the proletariat, but a new 'vanguard' class])

    • In sum, here's a loose simplification of the difference.
      • Ideology
        • Fragmentary but presents itself as universal.
        • Trivializes other fields of discourse instead of trying to fully grasp complexities.
        • Only has internal reality, not faithful to concrete reality.
      • Not Ideology
        • Engages to get a fuller sense of the world (a movement towards universality instead of an imposition)
        • Understands other perspectives (without necessarily agreeing)
        • Grounded in a continuous process understanding of truth-seeking.

    The Collapse of Sites

    "Every society in human history that has ever given itself over to government by intellectuals has lived to regret it. Ours will be no different." - Curtis Yarvin

    Philosophy of History + Political Philosophy

    Life and Lebenswille

    "There is a contradiction here: If the prize for winning finite play is life, then the players are not properly alive. They are competing for life. Life, then, is not play, but the outcome of play. Finite players play to live; they do not live their playing. Life is therefore deserved, bestowed, possessed, won. It is not lived. ‘Life itself appears only as a means to life’ (Marx)." - James P. Carse


    Sustainability Ethics and Amoralism

    • Ethics is a discourse that has no meaning when it's subject is not a being of conscious life, i.e, ethics only makes sense in light of conscious life. As an example, I cannot r@pe a rock, I cannot kill a rock, objects like rocks simply are not valid as subjects of ethics and any discourse with objects as a subject is meaningless and only can take arguments of irrational appeals to emotion.
    • Ethics is generated by the evolutionary and developmental activities of conscious life as it moves across vertical complexities; i.e, it is not a property of the universe (not 'discovered') but instead a creation of lifeforms.
    • Any primitive principle accepted on a first-order justification creates an entirely Autonomous Site of discourse (here, an ethical system) that thus is irreal outside it's own bounds due to it's disconnect from any concrete instances of ethics (i.e, principles such as Liberty or Utility being the core of an ethics instead of the subject of ethics itself) and disconnect and mutual unintelligability from other ethical systems. For example, a utilitarian and deontologist could never come to a 'compromise' due to their mutual absolute exclusion.
    • Any real (thus not Autonomous) system of ethics must both transcend a naive, primitive moralism and bring light to it.
    • All principles (as I discussed literally two points earlier) are arbitrary when we are in discourse about ethical systems on the first order.
    • However, despite this, all principles, when we discuss upon the second order, are expressible in terms of conscious life (as a principle) in such a way that conscious life (as a principle) has universal property. This is further verified by the fact that every ethical system is only intelligible in context of conscious life however mutually unintelligible with other ethical systems. In a way conscious life is the 'essence' of ethics, to brutalize the word 'essence' and use it in a very constructivist context.
    • Conscious life as a principle of ethics is a principle of concreteness since it is tautological to the subject of ethics- i.e, the core of ethics is it's own subject.
    • Any real system of ethics must satisfy moral naturalism (moral facts are reducible to concrete/real facts). However, due to the absolute Autonomy of ethical systems (on a first-order of discussion) this is untrue since it is disconnected from making decisions on grounds of it's own concrete subject and instead only makes decisions through the elevation of concrete subjects to an abstract principle that is seperate from the concrete subjects and homogenizes them into a flat system that is only commensurable with itself or it's subsets due to it's totalitarian absoluteness, i.e, ideology.
    • Thus, the abstract principle of conscious life is the only abstract principle that is also concrete- it is only abstract because it is the abstraction of concreteness, which makes it comparable to the axiology of beauty of minimalism but in the realm of the ethics (the axiology of good/bad/ethics or whatever you get the point). This is also comparable to the practical-theory that is described by Debord in Society of the Spectacle.
    • The abstract principle of conscious life can also be expressed broadly as 'sustainability ethics'.
    • The abstract principle of conscious life avoids Autonomy due to it's concrete-abstractness.
    • Thus the abstract principle of conscious life satisfies moral naturalism (moral facts are reduced to concrete facts of sustainability in a non-trivial but parallel way) and is real.
    • Therefore I accept sustainability ethics as it, in great oversimplifaction, is a diagonalization of ethical systems and due to this holds special properties (concrete-abstractness).

    Civilization and Humanity


    "I am not suggesting that people abandon their sense of self. But I do think that people get addicted to self-definition and it leads to inflexibility. That’s the Con talking - convincing each individual that she’s composed of the ordinary dross we wade through every day."
    - Unknown

    • Sundog sees the self not as an individual but as a self-organization of landing sites forming a 'body', and thinks that the urban environment is a directed authoritarian formation of the self. In rewilding and post-civilization, by seeking to disperse and do away with the metaphysics imposed by the city-form (i.e, the Spectacle), wants to ultimately in a way 'dissolve' the self while also absolutely fulfilling it how we find it when in nature. Similarly to Buddhism or Taoism, you could say, this thus implies that life be separated from lebenswille in transcendence of the nonlife of Spectacle. Then, the self kind of dissolves into the world, the ego is both finally able to live (Eros) and has fulfilled the ultimate transcendence of itself (Thanatos). The Ego is finally able to live, but inherits from Ego Death the lack of a metaphysics of number (well, kinda, I lack the words completely to describe this but I do at the end of the next paragraph thing) on itself to form a substance ('body') which is ultimately resultant of Bloom- the non-Bloom must take some inheritance from Bloom since a non-Bloom must only be achieved by the actions of a Bloom to transcend itself.

    • The metaphysics of number is ultimately the quantification of everything in life into exchangable commodities, commensurable with everything else through absolute totalitarianism of a fragment (A description of Ideology a la Debord) instead of a fragment transcending itself, which is the state of post-civilizational life Sundog described in the past paragraph. This quantification was only described by Debord externally- however Tiqqun leads us into the understanding that this has extended into the self. This is why one will see so many Plurals nowadays- it is not just a 'trend' or 'fad' as the conservatives wrongly think, but instead an inescapable result of the current society. The self is commodified and quantified, so what now restricts it to being one? Nothing. Nothing does. Ideally, since this is the state of Bloom, in post-civilization everyone would be more of a qualification than a quantification (metaphysics of number on the self). Thus in post-civ we see something beyond both the Singlet and Plural forms of a metaphysics of number on the self- but instead, recycling (rather than simply rejecting like an anti-civilizer might do), we see the absolute mobilization of the two into pragmatic assemblages which function like finite games under an infinite one do to Carse (read Finite and Infinite Games).

    • One, then, can summarize this position as the absolute fulfillment of the Architectural Body as a body. This is similar to Ego Death, without detachment from the Ego. Note that Bloom is not the union of Ego Death and the Ego because Ego Death has the absolute fulfillment of the Architectural Body- without an Ego to witness it- while Bloom is just the union of self and self-alienation.

    • The system of "pragmatic assemblages" has it's closest analogy in system polyfragmentation (like, plurals).

    • The Self has to be held together by something, and, drawing from Mead, I believe this is the Generalized Other. The production of "foreignness" is in the fact that the body is differentiated by the environment, which takes on the personification through it's ability to have the same sort of foreignness as real (not Generalized) Others do to us (which is always still mediated through a Generalized Other, which continues the life of the Spectacle). The body is the negation of the Generalized Other manifesting itself as environment with a produced foreignness, further verify this by the fact one seems to be "one with" the environment or "at home" when they know it well enough (this too is spectacular dramaturgy, though, and so there is instead the identification of the body with the environment). At this stage, extreme dramaturgy follows suit. For example, in the hierarchy of a school, we see increasing dramaturgy as the student goes through the grades and decreases the foreignness of their own environment, or becomes "at home" or "intimate" with it (going back to the previous note, the fact that being "at home" in our modern society is still spectacular can be verified by the fact that the upper classmen view themselves as differentiated from the lower classmen. great transformations happen after graduating highschool because of the dissolution of this 'school-body' which has evolved throughout the years). So, the body as it's own "sort" of thing, i.e, negation of the environment, always implies a sort of negative dramaturgy, is always produced by some sort of alienation and social mediation through the Generalized Other and Spectacle.

    Random questions i guess

    Marxism or Post-Marxism?

    • I’m not a ‘post-marxist’ really, but the dogmatic Marxism of history is not faithful to Marx. Marx is not a God. Marxism should be able to renew itself- not, of course, fall into reformism and petit-bourgeoisie tendencies- to universalize all intellectual renewal as Failure is overly reductionist and ignores the variety of intellectually revising or expanding forces- the existence of both renewing, adding forces and decaying, diluting forces that ignore the core insights of the things themselves and only derive from them provisionally. Also, self-critique can help improve marxist theory.

    What's Post-Civ?

    • Ending cities and monoculture, has little to do with how much or how little technologically advanced we want society to be, however we do want to end human's subservience to technology as an oppressive force.

    Are you Anarchist?

    • Nah.

    Are you Post-Modern?

    • NO. I hate postmodernism. Obviously, we can come to learn objective truth. Our understanding will never be perfect, however I think of it like a fractal. The more you iterate, the closer you get to the limit shape. We can never truly reach the limit shape, but we can get closer and closer and see the shape emerging in high detail (This is an analogy which very much oversimplifies things). In addition, communism is a metanarrative.

    How to Draw

    A flag with vertical stripes.
    1. Draw a ball.
    2. Divide it into thirds vertically or diagonally- the choice doesn't matter- to add color. At the top/left, red, then green, and finally black.
    3. Add a Yellow hammer and sickle in the middle.
    4. Add a waraxe with Light and Dark Grey patterns
    5. Add a helmet With Light and Dark Grey patterns
    6. Add Pink eyes.
    7. And you're done!
    Color Name HEX RGB
    Red #B60C0C 182, 12, 12
    Green #2F7212 47, 114, 18
    Black #000000 0, 0, 0
    Yellow #FFC300 255, 195, 0
    Light Grey #767676 118, 118, 118
    Dark Grey #3A3A3A 58, 58, 58
    Pink #FF5858 255, 88, 88


    Most Aligned Countries

    • Rojava
    • Palestine
    • Vietnam (During War)

    Somewhat Aligned Countries

    • Belarus
    • USSR (Pre-Stalin)
    • Ireland
    • China (Revolutionary)
    • Vietnam (Modern)
    • Cuba

    Neutral Countries

    • China (Modern)
    • USSR (Stalin)
    • North Korea[7]

    Somewhat Unaligned Countries

    • USSR (Post-Stalinization)

    Most Unaligned Countries

    • IsNOTreal
    • USA
    • UK
    • Taiwan
    • South Korea
    • Russia (Modern)
    • Ukraine


    A Small Note

    • If you want to include me in your page, here are the icons you can use! ^^ (NOTE: the first few are fine, you don't have to include all of them.)
    • Barbaric Socialism (///)
    • Also note that this is not only a judge of how much I agree with your beliefs. The ball in the brackets represent how I perceive you.


    • Ego-Libertarian Marxism () - Very good. Let us fight together.
    • Invertebraeism () - Just become revolutionary! But other than that, amazing.
    • Ego-Progressivism () - I do very much like this, even if we have various differences. I already like Foucault's idea of Biopower, although I don't consider myself well-read enough on him to put it up on influences. We have a common dislike of the ideologization of queerness to the current society, too.
    • Neo-Rojanism346 () - Fellow councilist, not much on here but I'm sure it'll be good :3 Oops I put you in the wrong one for a second sorry


    • Folkarchy () - We have alot of differences but this isn't bad.
    • Meowxism () - Not bad. But instead of gramscianism and legalism I prefer surrealism and buddhism as influences.
    • Revmirianism () - Another ML, and my main thing to say is- HOW THE FUCK IS FREUD, SARTRE, ALTHUSSER, LACAN, OR ZIZEK AT ALL BOURGEOISIE??? SOME OF THE OTHERS I CAN SEE BUT I FEEL LIKE BY "BOURGEOISIE" YOU JUST MEAN THAT YOU DON'T LIKE IT. ahem. sorry ^^"... im not actually mad
    • Asneeism () - Actually pretty good despite our differences. Buddhism, Taoism, Sorelianism, Paetelism, all are things I can really appreciate, and you're also just generally quite far left for a quasi-fash, so I can put definitely this up here. Heidegger seems interesting, I don't know that much about his stuff though. (Oh yeah and you like the environment :D)


    • Ultra-Enlightenment () - You scare me, and we're basically opposites, but I have to respect something so philosophically grounded and well-defined. Your view of the mind, too, intrigues me.
    • Neo-Optimateism () - Cruelty Squad IRL lmao. This is the worst dystopia my mind could literally ever imagine but you're definitely interesting nonetheless.
    • Nuriskianism () - I'm not an individualist, or a postmodernist. In fact I dislike both of them. I explained there is no single "individual" unit, and I in no way have anything to suggest that I follow any form of metaphysical or ethical relativism as well as not supporting insurrectionary political methods (duh from the summary) and as a whole how do I suggest that I oppose metanarratives? They haven't even come up at all in my page. But in fact communism is a sort of metanarrative of history that under postmodernism is dissimulated into micronarrative false conflicts. I stated at the beginning of the page that I am not a post-leftist. (also, what's my 'premise' to you?)
    • Vykarchism () - An interesting right-anarchist. Obviously we have almost nothing in common, but this is still interesting and you're definitely not illiterate (which separates you from 99% of the other users on this site).
    • Antidemocratic Hippieism () - Being progressive is cool, being a hippie is cool, fascism is not cool. Also you can't say you dislike moral universalism and then posit a bunch of very moral values like "Safe space for radical but nonviolent honesty", "Harsh collective discrimination against vile bully behavior".
      • - I was always moral universalist. In "government" I even defined the ideology as morally universalist.


    • Social Authoritarian Bonapartism () - Too reactionary! The Bonapartist state is an enemy of the proletariat and communism!
    • Neomontagnardism () - You're still too authoritarian and still not far left enough. Deist Theocracy is also cringe. Also you're not a socialist...
    • Chromatism () - *yawns*. Capitalism cannot be ecological. It demands constant growth through it's own sanctioned linear history that has no basis except for in itself- which makes it irreal. It cannot account for nature since that would violate the Spectacle.
    • Neo-Rosism () - Eh, this is just kind of mid. I think you have some misconceptions about progressivism though. Firstly- "I oppose pedophilia, zoophilia, etc"- not really any progressives go against this, also clarify what you define these as because sometimes people just mean by this that they think furry art is somehow as bad as actual animal abuse and sometimes they mean pro-cs (abusers and their piece of shit supporters who I obviously also oppose). Other than that I really like the biotranshumanism. Also know you're better than a lot of the other people on this ranking to be fair actually.
    • Schumacherianism () - Lol, why would I rate this high when I'd literally be killed in your system? Your social darwinisim section really makes zero sense to me.
      "Naturally, humans that seek to do something with themselves will attempt and succeed, and those that do not wish to assume their will must die. To make room for the strong-willed and to detatch the weak-willed parasites from their hosts." - not rationalism. This is a self-contradiction. "This dog, mostly living off of drugs and other artificial support, is not energetic enough to sustain its own being." by this logic every single person living today is a "terminally ill dog" because of monoculture and should be killed. "Most would argue that the dog should rather be put down, in order to end the suffering of this being." okay and why is their argument correct? Because I'd say it's not. Ethics cannot tell you to kill someone, since ethics only makes sense in light of the existence of conscious life, (this is under your ethics, I'm not even using life as a principle [my ethics]), just a context [what seperates ethics from other fields of axiology].
    • Kuzism () - BBBBOOOORRRRRIIIIINNNGGGG. But you should read theory!
    • Opkedism () - DIRTY LIBERAL


    • Midwestern Ba'athism - it's sad that you got so fucking angry over not understanding some words on some random person's political self insert page on polcompballanarchy. keep crying tho it's honestly funny

    Request to be added

    • I will not be debating you here.
    • Aploism - add me?
    • Folkarchy add me!
      • Both added!
    • Candelarismo add me schizo
      • im not a schizo not anymore
      • Cmon use my real tag ()
        • okey also ADD ME BACK EVERYBODY pls and thank u :3
          • add my new thingy
            • done
    • CHROMATISM - add me boy.
      • Okey hume
    • Meowxism - haii add me
    • Revmirianism - Add me
      • Everyone has been added! Please add me back! Thank you! ^^
    • Io - Asked to be added and didn't even add me back? waow...
      • IM SORRYYYYYY ;-; (I added you back now)
    • - add me?
      • Alright
    • Revmirianism - Hey do you know how to make icons? I downloaded the PNG template and I don't know what to do next
      • You can go and edit the template on online pixel art programs for example piskelart.com works well for me, first import the file and when you're done save it as a PNG and upload it to the wiki
    • Nuriskianism - add me bacl
      • done :P
    • Schumacherianism (////) - add.
      • add back?
    • Rojoism - Add me plz? :P
      • yayaa
      • sorry I accidentally edited in the wrong part D: I fixed it now
    • - Add me?
      • done, anyone who sees this comment section, please add me back
    • File:Coolyguyism.png Antidemocratic Hippieism - pls add me.
    • Revmirianism - sorry i forgot to add you... added you now
    • Charlottism - add me?
    • Vykarchism <3 - Dragons are so cool :o
      • YESSSS :3 THANK U
    • Also guys I'm not gonna use this page anymore



    1. yes, i know this is a whole album.
    2. yes, i know this is also a whole album.
    3. i dont even know if he's dead or alive TwT if you know pls tell me
    4. The self-liberation part also includes this.
    5. for everything i just said about wasps, here’s a paper verifying it: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2019.0015
    6. "If teaching the event does not at least raise the possibility of a class understanding of it, the teaching is not pedagogy; it is ideology"
    7. how am i gonna rate it dude we barely even fucking know anything about it because of how isolationist they are
    8. for all outsiders and opponents who don't make me yawn.
    Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.

    Recent changes

  • RoyalPolanman • 3 minutes ago
  • GeneralStudios • 20 minutes ago
  • Sir Lilac • 26 minutes ago
  • RoyalPolanman • 31 minutes ago
  • Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.