What is anarchy? Anarchy means simply, translating from the original Greek, “without rule”. Anarchism is a political program with anarchy as the goal. That means an anarchist can be defined in two ways: firstly, a person seeking the establishment of anarchy (abolition of rule); secondly, a person who rejects external rule. I would define myself as both, but with more focus on the latter. Abolition of the state seems difficult, if not impossible. So it is best to live now as if you have no masters, as that will be more liberating then devoting everything to fruitless struggle.
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 revolve 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.”
This does not mean liberation is now impossible. We are still able to discover who and what we are serving, though it will be difficult.
In an interview with Italian Marxist Franco “Bifo” Berardi, he credits the rise of right-wing populism and figures like Donald Trump with the “humiliation” of the working class. The 90s and 2000s were dominated by left liberal politicians that came to power due to working class support (think Blair or Clinton). In the end, all these liberal politicians did was humiliate the working class and do nothing to benefit them. This allows populist politicians like Trump to market himself as the humiliator of the humiliators, allowing him to garner support. This is similar to the populism of fascists within early twentieth century Europe. Bifo claims these far-right populists, like the fascist before them, would rally the members of a dominant ethnicity, nationality, or race and turn them against other workers. Instead of being workers, they become warriors against the humiliators.
Bifo counters the idea of a left-wing populism that stems from the same roots as the right’s fascistic populism. Instead, in his view, these humiliated workers should find dignity and autonomy within themselves. This would allow a movement to abolish the present state of things (that present state being neoliberal capitalism) to finally sprout.
In Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche discusses the origin of morality. He disagrees with previous studies into the origin of morality, who assumed that what was defined as good was always what was unegoistic.
First, he defines the good and bad morality of aristocrats (master morality). For the aristocratic, good was defined as what was noble, powerful, and life-affirming. Bad was defined in contrast to this, as what was lowly and weak. This meant those of the highest rank within society were good, while those of the lowest rank were bad. He points to the fact that everywhere with nobility had a similar moral system.
This eventually changed though. Those of low status began to feel ressentiment towards the nobility. This led to the creation of a moral system of good and evil (slave morality). Unlike the nobles they defined evil first, with evil being that which is noble, strong, and egoistic. Good is then defined as that which is unegoistic, sympathetic, and weak.
Despite proclaiming to preach love, slave morality can not exist without something to hate. In contrast, master morality only needs something outside itself to affirm itself. The noble also doesn’t need an object outside of itself to find fulfillment, unlike men of ressentiment. In opposition to the noble’s activity, the oppressed submit themselves to passivity, which allows them too see weakness as voluntary and virtuous. They then expect a reward for their passivity and suffering, an example being the Kingdom of God.
Jews and Christians will claim their beliefs are built off a love for others. This is shown not to be the case, with multiple Christian texts describing the joy Christians would feel watching the torment of those sinners who oppressed them.
These two systems of morality have been in conflict since the days of Rome. It appears that in the end slave morality won out with the spread of Christianity and the victory of the French Revolution and democracy. Despite this, master morality was able to rise again after the French Revolution with Napoleon, who Nietzsche describes as the “synthesis of inhuman and superhuman.”
This is based off of ideology, not personalities
More Spooked Than A Haunted House
HelloThere314 - Add Me?
Technocapital Cultist - Add me?
Owfism - add me to relations?