/lit/ - Literature

>>12960813
Yes, but the neomarxists did abandon their core, their traditional point of negation (and so affirmation, they assume the liberal stance of a middle, at least temporarily), hence the wide search for a replacement for the class struggle as historical determinant. But these new determinants are simply a product of capital, a second-order of class struggle, living within material as a dying aura, which paradoxically turns the critics into nothing more than the most critical economic liberals. They are simply diagnosing symptoms, acting as proletarians along the conveyor belts of information which self-resolves and devalorises any remaining vitality. All that is not uniform and saleable to the stamp-souled is plucked out before it can reach the machine - they are simply more picky about what gets packaged into the final box, what is allowed into the final uniforming process of the machine. This was largely because they became horrified at the sight of a particular form of capital and aligned with its seemingly benign, and temporary, opposition. The strategic blunders of the Spanish Civil War play out in marxist theory like the degradation of explosive powder in a flooded pillbox after a spring thaw. Whereas loyal marxists essentially became statisticians of what never was, attempting to revivify the powder for a storming of another Winter Palace.
It is no mistake that neomarxism and liberalism formed an alliance, nor that continued marxism, from within its degraded form, looks towards an ironic liberalism as the cure. Peterson and Adorno, for example, begin from the same fundamental question: how do we stop the ultimate enemy: the terror of fascism? And for all their seemingly explosive critiques, the neomarxist resolution is one of 'deepening alienation lmao' or 'dude just live in the contradiction it's as close as we're going to get lmao.' The left became the dominant academic form only insofar as it adopted liberal formalism - precisely to the extent that it manned the information processing centers with vigour it was welcomed as a temporary ally, as good Stakhanovites of the eternal counter-revolution.
Even value-form theory has been abandoned. This is seen clearly as hardened law within the Neue Marx-Lektüre, and ceremony by anyone who clings to the theory, although they don't really understand its meaning anyway. There is no real movement, all that remains is formal.

>>11796491
A bunch of stuff

Good for the question on violence:
Direct Action: Memoirs of an Urban Guerrilla by Ann Hansen
Letters of Insurgents by Fredy Perlman
How it all Began by Bommi Baumann
The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years by Murray Bookchin
Armed Joy by Alfredo Bonanno

Baumann is a communist, and I suggest it for the differing perspective, this is important to understand the further split in that period.

More general insurrectionism, egoism, primitivism.
The Anarchist Tension by Bonanno
Camatte (far-left/communist, but his critique of leftist organisations is similar to that of anarchists, and he is the proto-primitivist)
Against His-story, Against Leviathan by Perlman
At Daggers Drawn
The Poverty of Feminism
Barbarians: The Disordered Insurgence
Sam Moss
Killing King Abacus
Summits and Counter-Summits
Nihilist Communism (far-left again, and go terribly wrong in some places, but their critique of leftist organisation was quite important)
Revolution of Everyday Life by Vaneigem
The Right to be Greedy by the American Situationists
Summits and Counter-Summits
Insurrection
Against the Corpse Machine

Tiqqun should be read as something of a popularised insurrectionism, with situationist and post-liberal philosophy elements. The fact they have been taken up by the institutions makes them relevant in a very strange way.
I wrote this as a joke when I abandoned the left completely:
http://triumvirateproject.tumblr.com/post/58943559281/preliminary-materials-for-a-critique-of-the-nice
It's a ridiculous satire of these colluding worlds of rebellion and popular society, pseudo-intellectualism and automated marxism - and a bit of a mess (I can't find the edited version). But perhaps someone will get something from it as it predates a lot of the SJW madness and the incel discussion.

geocities insurrectionism kkabacus (search because system thinks it is spam)

>>11540198

I wrote something up but it reveals too much of what I am working on. The major problem is that very few understand the true inner workings of liberalism, so even its critics get caught up within its levers and pulleys.
The following is a response to a neoreactionary/absolutist discussion of the liberal misunderstanding of power and order. I think it reveals something of the true origins of all this madness.

"This is a fundamental misunderstanding of liberalism and the order which holds the modern state together. If liberalism is so poor in regards to stability, cohesion, order, loyalty, and reproduction, then how could it have possibly won the battle on every front? From monarchism to 'absolutism', communism, and fascism, no enemies were left standing. And while this could be seen in a few cases as a mere triumph of population there is no situation in which the state returns to a hierarchical model. Which means that, in this case, the laws of entropy either do not apply or the true source of organising power is unknown (i.e. it is something other than centralising state power and scientific mechanisation).

>>11084661
Camatte
https://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/agdom.htm