Mareelsido

Dark Mutualism includes Neoreactionaryism,  Landian Accelerationism, Neo-Mutualism, Neocameralism and Proudhonism

Marxism below is bolded, Left Libertarianism (also Mutualist-Social Mutualist/Market-oriented left libertarian, Left Wing Free Market Anarchism-anarchistic socialism [Benjamin Tuckerite, Kevin Carson-Roderick Long Mutualism/Left Libertarianism,  Agorism, Austrian Fusion related ideologies are underlined and slanted

i’m definitely gonna need delving deeper into this Del Noce guy, because he sees the left’s options way clearer than anyone in the left in a good while have. dark mutualism, and LRx more generally, both fall squarely within the “reality principle” left described above. devising strategy and vision to embrace and follow capital into its extremity,  ultimately into machinic proletarian revolution, is the only thing that could possibly still make justice to any rigorous marxian or proudhonian analysis of history.

"Once again, I understand all of this, and I very much sympathize with your concerns. I haven’t been in the anarchist movement for nearly as long as you have, to say the least, so I’m certainly, by default, a lot less cynical than you are about « proudly heretical » mutualist prospects because I haven’t had to basically revive an entire intellectual and political tradition almost alone while dealing with the absolute mess that is the general discourse around PJ Proudhon and his oeuvre, be it coming from the Marxists or the monarchists. I also haven’t had to deal with the rise of the whole national-anarchism and anarcho-pluralism sh*tfest.

Cyborg Nomad predictably holds much of « leftist academia » in disdain, so I wouldn't expect him to be very aware of these kinds of things in the first place.

Daniel Colson's work is great, and it definitely deserves more attention than it gets, but I don't think he and cyborg_nomade are working on the same set of problems. Ironically, what Shawn Wilbur and Kevin Carson would take most issue with, I believe, is not cyborg_nomade's flirtation with Moldbug, but instead his orthodox marxism directly inherited from landian accelerationism. This transition from Proudhon and Carson to classic (Karl) Marx certainly has yet to be properly articulated. I know that Edmund Berger is itching to write a book rehabilitating Marx's critique of Proudhon from, well, rehabilitations like that of Iain Mckay which he only finds half-convincing. This should clarify quite a few things about the accelerationism/anarchism relationship, I hope.

That’s perfectly fair. Much like cyborg_nomade, this is really a pet obsession of mine, and I don’t expect anyone else to share it. Holland’s preoccupations are certainly easier to relate to anarchism, while accelerationism has everything to do with marxism, orthodox marxism even.

Where do you think cyborg_nomade conflates mutualism with market anarchism? He certainly is more of a (ben) tuckerian-Austrian school subscriber than a proudhonian insofar as he tends to favorise market arrangements, but he doesn’t preclude non-market arrangements, either. Just like Kevin Carson, he is very much fine with letting people do their own thing.

As for PJ Proudhon’s progressivism, cyborg_nomade’s contention is that it rests on a theory of time that he finds insufficiently kantian. He doesn’t deny Proudhon’s anti-absolutism at all, he just affirms that Proudhon didn’t conceptualize it well-enough—on this specific point, he is admittedly closer to Karl Marx than to PJ Proudhon.

I don’t disagree. So much of the Proudhonian corpus is still unexplored to this day, especially compared to the Marxian one, that I tend to feel insecure when it comes to making big absolutist (ha!) declarations about what Proudhon has forgotten to take into account in his thinking, or whatever.

From what I can see, cyborg_nomade takes PJ Proudhon’s great anti-absolutist manifesto to be his Philosophie du progrèss which, while a great text, is not exactly fully representative of Proudhon’s more mature work, I think.

Nonetheless, it does seem to me that Kant’s influence on Karl Marx is much bigger than it is on PJ Proudhon as it comes to their respective approach to both political economy and Capitalism. But, to go in the direction of what you are saying, it is after all in the Grundrisse that Marx’s kantianism is at its most glaring—that is to say, in unpublished manuscripts—so who knows what you could find in Proudhon’s own! I’d be delighted to find stuff

Well, as you happen to agree, it doesn’t seem to me that PJ Proudhon directly conceptualizes time at all—again, a crucial difference that separates him from Karl Marx. Cyborg_nomade’s proposal is to plug in the kantian theory of time into the Mutualist matrix.