Archive for the ‘Timeless’ Category

Socialism and International War

July 12, 2017

I read this article on socialism in 1914 trying to understand why the socialist revolution never happened in the United States or in Western Europe; why, instead of the workers uniting to fight their oppressors, they divided according to their supposed national identities and fought each other; why socialism has been in a steady decline since 1914 (despite the supposed existence of socialism from 1917 until today).

This is the article:

I’ll quote extensively so you won’t have to read it, and I’ll only add a few comments of my own.

“For the leadership of the German Social Democratic Party (SPD), undoubtedly the centre of gravity within the International, the vote for war credits was partly justified as a means of entry into the inner sanctum of power: it was hoped that this vote, and in particular the unanimity of the vote, would make the party respectable. Whether or not the SPD succeeded on these terms, the vote certainly killed the Socialist International, and it did so in a way that was immediately recognised by contemporaries as a ‘seminal moment in the history of socialism’”.

”While they were caught unawares by the swift move to war and offered little by way of concrete proposals to stop it, this is perhaps best understood as a function of how they had allowed themselves, prior to 1914, to become enmeshed within what were de facto reformist organisations, albeit reformist organisations that bowed before revolutionary rhetoric… [However, they also] believed their government’s claims that Germany was merely preparing to defend itself from Russian and French aggression”



Subjectivity; Inwards and Outwards

June 1, 2017

A subject experiences the universe from a specific point of view. So we have an inwards direction towards the subject and an outwards direction in the opposite direction. In other words we have a from-the-inside-perspective and a from-the-outside-perspective. A subject can never achieve the latter, but let’s start with the insider-view.

When I use my brain to think of something that’s from the inside and when we describe what’s happening in someone else’s brain that’s from the outside. To be more specific let’s think of the description we have of an electron. Electrons orbit a nucleus of protons (more…)

What’s the Difference between a State, a Nation and a Society?

May 31, 2017

The state

There are two definitions of states. The first, and original, one is the same as the one in the phrase “status quo ante bellum” meaning “the state of things before the war” -> “as before” or “as usual”. The same literal definition is found in a sentence like “Look at the state of your hair, it’s a right mess!” This type of state encompasses the whole of something, it’s a description of the combined state of everything involved; a totality or summation; the sum total.

The other state is a specific organization. Currently there are a couple of (more…)

Identity, Generalization and Association

March 2, 2017

I’ve written about these concepts in my latest blog posts, but thought I’d explain them shortly in a separate text.

There are no two identical things. If two things were identical in all aspects, including their position in time and space, they would not be two things, they would be the same thing. Yet, without similarities between things, we would not be able to think.

In mathematics all numbers and terms are derived from the number 1. As an example, we (more…)


February 3, 2017

Framtidens nomad är ensam, men sammankopplad. Unik i sin helhet, förenad i detaljerna. Jag kan gå vart jag vill, det finns ingen egendom och inget territorium som permanent tillhör någon. Jag har med mig avancerad teknik som låter mig överleva i alla miljöer men ändå är tillräckligt lätt för att bäras. Det finns byggnader där miljoner människor kan sova ostört och när de vaknar finns det gratis mat att äta innan de fortsätter på sina äventyr. De stora städerna är alltid upplysta som på dagen, men sovkamrarna är isolerade. Ljuset är precis som solljuset, men kanske inte lika starkt. Det är alltid vackert väder här och alla storstäder använder samma tidszon. Veckor är inte längre sju dagar eftersom det inte behövs någon helig dag, eftersom det inte finns någon vardag. Natt finns bara i vildmarken, men jag är utrustad för ett liv i vildmarken. Staden är förstås också full av vilda nomader, men jag tecknar andra avtal med människor jag passerar på gatan än med vargar som smyger efter mig i snön.

Det finns fortfarande konkurrens om uppmärksamhet om vad som är viktigt och brådskande (det vi kallar politik). Organisationer konkurrerar om (more…)

The Future Nomad

January 28, 2017

The future nomad is alone, but connected; unique as a whole, united in the specifics. I am able to go wherever I want, there is no property or territory that permanently belongs to someone. I bring advanced technology that lets me survive in any environment but is still light enough for me to carry. There are buildings where millions of people can sleep undisturbed and when they wake up there is food free to eat before they continue their adventures. The big cities are always lit bright as the day, but the sleeping rooms are insulated. The light is just like sunlight in every aspect, expect perhaps in brightness. There’s always pleasant weather here and all the big cities are in the same time zone. Weeks are no longer seven days, because we are no longer forced to work business days and consequently no longer forced to rest on the sabbath. Nighttime only exists in the wilderness, but I am equipped to live in the wilderness. The city is of course also filled with wild nomads, but I make different agreements with people I pass on the street and lions that stalk me on the savannah.

There is still competition for awareness of what is important and urgent (this is called politics). Organizations compete for (more…)

Commodification and Linguistic Anarchism

January 6, 2017


To think of things as commodities is to be part of a religion. This religion took the form of capitalism and dominates society today. Just as metaphysical Christian ideas have real, physical consequences, metaphysical commodity ideas have real, physical consequences. Just as Christian practices reinforce the belief in Christian values, capitalist practices reinforce the belief in commodity values.

Religions have come and gone, but since feudal monarchy was defeated in 1918, capitalism has ruled over all incompatible worldviews. The commodification of the planet is increasing as is the belief in commodity value and there is no indication that it will slow down. Competition between different worldviews leads to conflicts between worldviews if they include a system of reward for their believers. In addition, commodity values are limited by the demand for commodities, which creates competition over profit within capitalism.

The struggle for profit is increasingly focused on quick gains. The past is beyond more commodification and the future is difficult to commodify because it’s uncertain, particularly in the long term. Hence, the commodification of the present is increasing. Commodity values are not inherently evil, if they’re temporary or only occur on a small scale there’s not much to worry about, but once it becomes systematic the relative nature of these values establishes a praxis that overrules the real, subjective evaluation it’s based on and it is this systemic practice we call capitalism.


The supply of (more…)

An Anarchist Critique of the Farm

December 26, 2016

Anarchism relates to several aspects of the farm including labour, alienated property, territory, patriarchy, ecology, colonialism and animal rights. I’ve not seen a critique like this before and since I’ve spent the majority of my life on a farm I thought I could be the one to write it. My father is a farmer, I’m not, but for the sake of rhetoric I will write as if the ‘I’ of the text is a farmer.


My labour is not rewarded with paper money and thus not alienated. Instead, there is no clear distinction between my life and my labour. I live where I work. When I repair the buildings on the farm, I labour on both my workplace and my home at the same time. To me there is little difference between mowing the lawn for aesthetic reasons and (more…)

The Marxian Knot

November 15, 2016


The legacy of Marx is a puzzle of rhetoric, historical movements and drastic political changes that have shaped the lives and deaths of millions of people. Although Marx is most often the target of criticism from economists and politicians, to understand Marx we first need to understand the philosophical basis that led to his thoughts on economy and politics. Marx has also been greatly misunderstood, by both followers and opponents, and the fault lies both with the interpreters and with Marx. The problems stem from the ideological eye wear of commenters, myself included, by him contradicting himself, the large quantity of text he produced, his unpublished works and the complexity of the terminology and the subject matter. To understand Marx’s works and the events that followed in his wake, it is necessary to describe the context thoroughly. For this reason I’m going to present this text in roughly chronological order.

We will begin in Prussia with Marx’s studies of philosophy. Next we follow him to France and to his studies of economics, here I will try to explain his magnum opus, popularly known as Das Kapital. In the last section we will investigate his legacy as a man of international revolution. Although somewhat chronologically structured, thematically this leads us first through philosophy, then economics and lastly politics, interspersed with historical recapitulations when additional context is needed. If you’re only interested in Marx’s economic theories, just read the part entitled Critique of the Political Economy. I end it with a sort of conclusions that contrasts Marx’s focus and work with my own thoughts.


Bureaucracy, Promises and Predictions in Relationships

September 4, 2016

What is an organization? A common answer is that it is the people of which it is composed, but I propose that it is everything but the people. The defining characteristic of an organization is the glue which exists between people, the principles that unite its members, an interpersonal relationship, not the persons themselves. In this text I will try to demonstrate how bureaucracy is the totality of promises in a relationship or principles in an organization, that capital is only one type of such promises and that capital is based on a predicted future value. I consider this to be my second text under the umbrella of post-anarchism after this one.

To the extent that an individual acts in accordance with the commands of the organization, the words of the organization manifest outside our minds. To the extent an individual acts in discord with the bureaucracy (more…)

Anarchism, Communalism and Blood and Soil

April 6, 2016

Nationalism is a generalization of a group of people, someone claiming a common identity. This is comparable to racism, sexism and other attempts at creating monolithic identities. Nationalism is one of the more obviously false generalizations, but let’s take a closer look at the details supporting this identity. The identitarian movement in Europe is the most recent expression of these kinds of generalizations. In theory, these groupings do not cause harm, but in practice any interactions between self-identified members of different groups will result in conflict. Of course, as long as we don’t interact, there won’t be conflict, but that’s another problem.

Another trend in Europe has been labelled national-anarchism. The term anarcho-identitarian has also been used.  (more…)

Post-Anarchism – Introduction

March 11, 2016

Post-anarchism means ‘late anarchism’. It is not separate from anarchism, nor is it merely the combination of anarchism and post-structural analysis. I think of it as a reunification, or perhaps synthesis, of anarchism after the split between anarcho-communists and anarcho-individualists, although that is more what it feels like to me than what it actually is. It also attempts to step out of the shadow of state-political anarchism, which predominantly consists of anti-fascism and anti-statist communism. Not to deny that anarchism is political in any sense of the word, just to emphasize that these two modern expressions don’t proportionally represent the basis of anarchist theory as I see it.

Post-anarchism is a deconstruction and reconstruction of anarchism that is still underneath the umbrella of anarchism. It differs from the similarly-named post-left anarchism, which builds on the socialist tradition. Post-anarchism is more like an unhitched river with occasional tributaries ranging from diverse sources, like e.g. existentialism, liberalism, protestantism, Buddhism, physics, neurology, prehistoric cultures and the list goes on. Since anarchism is inherently anti-dogmatic it has no problem with revisionism. However, this is not a platformist attempt. Instead it is in itself an example of the type of organizations or federations it promotes, namely ones that start with one person reaching out to other people with similar thoughts, although not necessarily the same thoughts. Each person or group has their own focus and this is true for this text as well. Basically, post-anarchism, as I present it in this text, is how I think post-anarchism should be defined, meaning I’ve given myself the right to define it after having given myself the right to proclaim myself a post-anarchist.

After re-reading my latest writings a number of times I’ve come to the conclusion that the main feature of my post-anarchism is that it reduces all the problems in anarchist analyses to organizations and so to relationships and so to the subject in the world. This includes property, capital, violence, bureaucracy, representation et cetera. This allows for all previous theories to still be true and relevant and so doesn’t negate the past of anarchism and its bedfellows but rather provides a base structure in which all the different analyses can come to rest in their proper places and in their proper relationships to each other. I believe anarchism should have a place in organizational theory next to Max Weber, game theory and common laissez-faire realpolitik. However, that is a major undertaking and this text is merely an introduction.

I will introduce my view on post-anarchism/anarchism by listing a few topics which I believe are relevant to analyze, without going into too much detail. The list is not meant to be complete and it’s not in any specific order and my ramblings on each topic are meant as kick-starters rather than as closing statements. Since I’m rambling a bit and not trying to clarify many demarcations it helps if you already know what anarchists have focused their analyses on in the past.

Skipping a large chunk of history, people in Europe were criticizing God, the king and the nobility after the Enlightenment. In the 19th century Stirner talked about the equality of individuals, Déjacque about compassion that ignored family and lineage, Bakunin and Proudhon about mutual engagement in labour. Just before WW1, Kropotkin, the last major figure in anarchism, talked about natural organization. More recently, the anarchist critique against oppression has been combined with black liberation, feminism, ecology, LGBTQ, disabilities and various other issues. However, all the combinations haven’t necessarily combined with each other and some of the newest combinations, like anarcho-capitalism, contradict the rest of anarchism. Bookchin stopped calling himself an anarchist because of the anarcho-capitalists and the post-left anarchists have been trying to reformulate the red-and-black current but little has changed since Kropotkin. I’m focusing on theory but just to have it mentioned, anarchists were most active in France and Germany during the 19th century, and then, in chronological order, in the Russian (including in the Ukraine), Spanish and Syrian civil wars. We might also add the many assassinations of the rich and powerful, like Prince Franz Ferdinand or Czar Alexander II, and uprisings like the Zapatistas’ in Mexico and further note that anarchists take part in anti-fascist demonstrations, union strikes, squatting, street occupations et cetera.

For all of these events it’s unclear to which degree and how many of the participants are anarchists. Perhaps that’s also the wrong perspective to start from. Maia Ramnath writes in Decolonizing Anarchism: “decolonizing our concept of anarchism… means that instead of always trying to construct a strongly anarcha-centric cosmology – conceptually appropriating movements and voices from elsewhere in the world as part of ‘our’ tradition, and then measuring them against how much or little we think they resemble our notion of our own values – we could locate the Western anarchist tradi­tion as one contextually specific manifestation among a larger – indeed global – tradition of antiauthoritarian, egalitarian thought/praxis, of a universal human urge (if I dare say such a thing) toward emancipation, which also occurs in many other forms in many other contexts. Something else is then the reference point for us, instead of us being the rderence point for everything else. This is a deeply decolonizing move.” This allows us to look for deeper principles and associate theoretically with prehistoric cultures, the Münster rebellion or the relationship between a boy and a pigeon. It’s also necessary to go beyond labels, whether endonyms or exonyms, like anarchist, nihilist, terrorist, illegalist, revolutionists etc. (with anarchist being the preferred label in my zeit).

I want to change the focus from the state, marxism and anti-fascism and not to have arguments predicated, explicitly or implicitly, on their underlying theoretical assumptions (e.g. free will is foundational to marxism). Here are a few topics I think need to be considered or more in focus to improve the theoretical principles of anarchism:

  1. Home
  2. Identity
  3. Subject
  4. Language
  5. Communication
  6. Ideology
  7. Territory
  8. Cities
  9. Digital Space
  10. Economy as logistics
  11. Power
  12. Freedom
  13. Organization
  14. Bureaucracy
  15. Prison
  16. Revolution
  17. State versus politics
  18. Informal relationships
  19. Representation versus responsibility
  20. Symbolism and metaphysics
  21. Capital as imagined value
  22. Education

The concept of home needs to be deconstructed. Does it need to be a physical territory or a certain building or is it a state of mind? Whatever it is it shouldn’t replace your identity with a generalization that you are like those who are (physically) around you.

Sure, the language and culture in my immediate environment are important to me, but the history of “my” land/country/state/nation/culture is not relevant beyond whatever has survived, in the form of culture and artefacts, into the present. My siblings might have influenced my identity, but mere historical facts have not, and either way it’s not generalizable. We have virtual homes online as well, on platforms like, which represents both a complex infrastructure and a single brand that can be adopted as a symbolic identity for a group.

Should I not open “my” home to you? Why is this piece of the planet mine and not yours? Should we really have toll stations on every threshold? It’s not easy to answer these questions. Similarly, on the one hand I wish the oppressed peoples of the world were freed, but if that means they then create nation-states of their own, then we’re still going to have to deal with that problem. How small units must we divide ourselves into and on which basis? Maybe that question is the wrong one anyway.

Language is important for identity, although not to the extent that ideologies or ideas are shaped solely by words as many ideas exist prior to and next to the words that represent them. You might feel at home when you identity yourself with someone you meet and language matters; social, (more…)

Spektral Anarkism

November 26, 2015

Jag myntade precis denna neologism så det är upp till var och en att anamma/avfärda den. Spektral anarkism, eller Sparkism, ser på samhället som ett sammanhängande, steglöst spektrum vari sociala konstruktioner vävs samman och uppstår och kvarstår beroende av varandra. (Alternativa namn innefattar Kontinuerlig anarkism, Intersektionell anarkism, Flytande anarkism, Flytande demokrati, Interanarkism, Regnsbågsanarkism, Spektral demokrati, och Interokrati.) Det är en kritik mot alla hierarkier på samma gång och bygger på tanken att hierarkier stödjer varandra på ett sådant sätt att alla måste rivas. Om endast en av dem faller så kommer de andra gå i försvarsställning och stärka varandra. Jag har skrivit om dessa olika hierarkier förut, men har inte kunnat formulera ett sammanbindande koncept förrän nu (jag hoppas att jag lyckats med det i och med den här texten). Det som följer är en heltäckande förklaring som mestadels består av text jag klippt ut och klistrat in från mina andra bloggposter.



För mig betyder anarkism inga hierarkier. Hierarkier är sociala (more…)

Spectral Anarchism

November 25, 2015

I’ve just coined this neologism so feel free to adopt/reject it. Spectral Anarchism, or Sparkism, approaches society as though it were a continuum or spectrum, a multifaceted world in which social constructs are interwoven and dependently-arisen. (Other possible terms include Continuous Anarchism, Intersectional Anarchism, Fluid Anarchism, Fluid Democracy, Inter-anarchism, Rainbow Anarchism, Spectral Democracy and Interocracy). It is a simultaneous critique against all hierarchies reasoning that one hierarchy will lean on another in such a way that all must be torn down – for if only one or a few are torn down the remaining ones will go on the defensive and strengthen each other. I have written about these different facets of Anarchism before, but not been able to formulate a unifying concept until now (well, I hope I have managed it with this post.) What follows is for the most part copy-pastes I have gathered into a comprehensive narrative from other blog posts I’ve made.



For me anarchism means no hierarchies. Hierarchies are social (more…)

Why Anarchism isn’t part of the Left

November 20, 2015

Socialism alone can’t solve social problems because society is much more than the division of labour. All social problems seem to be like the problem of labour, but solving the problem of labour doesn’t mean that the other problems will be solved simply by association. In contrast, anarchism addresses all problems at all levels simultaneously. Thus the Left can be part of anarchism, but anarchism is broader than the Left, if by Left we mean socialism.

This reasoning can be applied to veganism, anti-statism, anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, indigenous rights and so on and so forth. These and others are potential allies of anarchism and also part of anarchism, but to make this clear let’s take patriarchy as an example by comparison to capitalism. Capitalism was initiated by the capitalists, not the workers, and this division has persisted. The propaganda and the law enforcement really only offer one solution to the workers; to become capitalists themselves and thereby reaffirm the system.

Similarly, it is men who have benefitted the most from owning their wives through the institution of marriage. The propaganda and the law enforcement again only offer one solution to e.g. non-male and non-straight people: striving for equality in the form of an equal share in the ownership in a formal marriage, which thereby reinforces the system.

Obviously, the ultimate solution in both cases must be to tear down these structures rather than attempt to push one individual up the ladder at a time, even though it pains us to see all the people on the bottom. However, if we can’t figure out how to solve the structural problems, we are forced to fight for equality within the system until we figure it out.

P.S. Previously I have described anarchism as part of socialism and historically there is some truth to that, in particular regarding the fact that anarchists were part of the First International and then got kicked out. However, there were anarchists already before then. (There were also socialists before Marx(ists) who claimed the words socialism, communism, leftism, workerism which makes the problem even more complicated.)

P.P.S. Compare it to anarcho-capitalists. They define anarchism as anti-statism, thereby allowing other hierarchies to exist. This is similar to the narrow view that communists have towards the economy. Anti-statism is part of anarchism, but only a part of it. Anti-capitalism is part of anarchism, but only a part of it.

P.P.P.S. The best definition of Left might be opposition to the reigning order. And socialism isn’t necessarily marxism either, so I guess the relationship between anarchism and the left is just a question of who is in charge at the moment, but I’ll leave this post up anyway, to demonstrate my shortcomings if nothing else.

Anarchist Property

May 2, 2015

This text is a suggestion for amending Marx’s description of power relations throughout history. It is focused on the pre-conditions of property since material property is fundamental to Marx’s analysis, which led to the global clash between capitalism and communism.

Before unravelling the consequences of this amendment let’s start with establishing the source of property and determine which attributes of property would alter the outcome of Marx’s analysis. To understand the source of property, we must first understand the self and I’ll get to the self by comparing three ideas; a dependent, an independent and an interdependent self.

Dependent self

A long time ago, I contend, people felt like they were in some sense an immanent part of nature. This was not the only view (more…)

Separation of Capitalism and State

April 1, 2015

So, I had this idea of separating capitalism from politics, much like the separation of church and state. It’s fairly simply and although it would be very difficult to implement, I don’t see any major drawbacks. I’ve also added an old idea about a communist state below. Obviously I still prefer my neurocracy, but it’s always useful to test other ideas.


A Few More Thoughts on Anarchist Revolution

March 3, 2015

Historically, anarchism in the Americas, Spain and now Syria sprung out of war. The Russian and Chinese revolutions as well. The French revolution happened just after the U.S. revolution and major French military losses over there. The U.S. revolution is less clear to me, but the there are general tendencies to identify.

1st: The chaotic state and disorganized production, logistics, temporary housing etc allowed for an easier transmission to a new system since the old one wasn’t really present anymore.


Singular, Dual and Plural Progress

February 10, 2015

It has occurred to me that I need to relate my view on progress to other people’s for the sake of clarity. So, I’m gonna phrase this as singular, dual and plural. This is not to be confused with the dualism of a physical and metaphysical world though, as that is an issue on a separate axis relative to this categorization. Anyway, a singular view of progress is expressed by Carlyle. A dual view of progress is expressed by Hegel and Marx. These point to a goal, a forward progress and betterment. My pluralistic view is one of emergence, with no specific orientation, but just wild and uncertain growth and decline.


“For Carlyle, chaotic events demanded what he called ‘heroes’ to take control over the (more…)

Stray Thoughts

February 8, 2015
Imagine a wave rolling against a beach like an electron, a spectrum wave made of near-1, circling the proton like an invisible membrane, a universe substance, a medium, monist.
All knowledge is dependently-arisen, proven by the nervous system being a network.
5 levels: Motion, matter, DNA, life, universe.