Further Essays on Egoist-Communism
The Communization Of Egoism
The Human Inhuman's Parable
“Utopia is on the horizon: when I walk two steps, it takes two steps back … I walk ten steps, and it is ten steps further away. What is utopia for? It is for this, for walking.” – Eduardo Galeano, the inspiration of Subcomandante Galeano
If you think all people are born equal, then start sharing even the fucking "intelligence" schools reward you with. Your fucking worth is there to be measured, this is how we all deep down, deconstruct hierarchy. I think the reason some groups have the 2nd highest average IQ in the world like a person who knows the Chinese script, is because they resist hierarchy and authority.
Philosophizers are so stupid, that they rejected negative numbers as "illogical", because it didn't serve their states' materialism. Science is eugenics, eugenics was a science because science was always so far from the lived reality of all by the pull of all states. I worship none but my own and reality! Curb your realism! Your truth lies in the dogmatism of the other!
No authoritarian relation or system is solved, until they are questioned by walking your utopia. Let us make a return to the parables of yore, where the realism of Nietzsche demanded you be the owner of all over all; the parables of Stirner demand you to own yourself through them. To be your own god, because god is a concept made by walking people.
The limit of all knowledge lies in 2 civilizations the Indus Valley and Sumer–Indus Valley reality versus Sumerian realism. Some are anti-civilization, for we have deconstructed it into meaninglessness. I choose to be an arbitrator, because my own hurt made it innate to me.
Murray Bookchin and Noam Chomsky represented morality's heat death–they described the anarchist world, yet were unrelenting in their criticism of those trying to live in anarchy: the lifestylist. Both stared at the sun of realism for too long, for state of Zionism claiming to be reality has shown us the visceral reality of the dying Palestinian. The "rational" choice is always an irrational one, escape or attack.
In a world that lacks feeling and doesn't feel, there is only absorption and memory. States desire the world, States are the enemy.
The Chinese language is the anti-code language, and encourages independent mapping of thoughts and memories & independent mapping of rewards and punishments through predictable characters. So, fucking reward people—for the love of god! IQ is not fixed because it doesn't represent the stability I need—Let me resist this fucking measurement and order, or I will make myself revolutionary.
Their words tend to be unique and pile up as a result of resistance against hierarchy & proves my thesis on intelligence and egoism. It is the most accessible language to an ego. My thesis is in essence, the easiest fucking deconstruction ever—I can't even begin wondering why IQ exists and which fucking fascist made it. The deconstruction of IQ scores are as clean of an expression of state power and eugenics as it gets.
IQ is really just the measure in which people resist their encounter with the perceived tester. The State needs to depersonalize and sell science to prove it's superiority to others—this is why democracy and pirates have been such a pain in the ass for states for so long. This is why math is hard for me because these other-deferential philosloppers have essentialized the language with perception.
Language is shaped by the distribution of material i've been lacking the means to do my entire fucking life, my shit keeps getting stolen—language I haven't been able to learn, because shit has been fucked for me in the past. Fuck! Reward and treat yourself to some good ol' fashioned pedantry and delirium. Refuse the order of even nation and language itself, for language is itself, is ironically—unscientific and unreal. Nihilism is resistance to everything State's represent—the fetish of materialism.
RIGHT NOW! THIS INSANT! DEPERSONALIZE SCIENCE BECAUSE SCIENTISTS ARE ALIENATED FROM EVEN THEIR WORK BY CAPITALISM—THE GREEDY AUTHORITY!
The people have an equal ability to connect the fuckin dots & deconstruct shit against the state's constant need to measure: track and sell, measure and sell, direct and sell & let me do what I want to you. SEK3, you beautiful son of a bitch! We need some of your Agorism! We need Agorism of the ego too—because your agorism is the description of your lived reality.
Your grey markets are between the State's stupid binary of black and white. We, the people chant equality. I want disorder! Not to be measured and called the disorder. Eugenics is still with us today, but it isn't in the IQ. It is so fucking sneaky, it hurts my brain even thinking about it; It is in the even follower count of your beloved social media stars too, who gossip about others. It's in Fidias Panayiotou.
You won't be sorting anyone in neat rows—You will be owning anybody for the embrace of chaos is the greatest democracy we've ever seen—to work because you strive to make dogs talk, not because the advertisement and the capitalist promises it to you.
It is no wonder they collaborate with fascists, for language is dead. Long live signs and semiotics—the ars erotica! I will reward the freedom of others, because I am happy with the other. It isn't pedantry, it is the lack of egoism. Spread this shit around and let us fuck the State raw together - amorally! States cant pathologize everybody you know, they don't have what I have: Game theory and swarm intelligence. It's fucking real, man.
The cop in your brain is the quintessential asshole, the egoism of every feeling being is anti-metaphysical as it is grounded in reality, not the "realism" Marxists conflate with "idealism". I can't do shit without you all! If you want to read Stirner—or, any philosopher in that regard, go read the Philosophical Reactionaries. I can assure you, as a feeling being; it'll be the most pleasant thing you'll ever read:
"Neither you nor I will cancel the great facts of modern natural research... Precisely here the philosopher has revealed himself as the 'clumsy' subject; because he is as ignorant in a 'clumsified' sphere in which he has no power"
If Nietzsche was the realist of nihilism, Max Stirner is the Jesus Christ of nihilism with his parables of I and my own and his war against the Roman State's fetishism over metaphysics. The German Ideology is fucked—precisely because they intentionally projected themselves onto Stirner only to IMMEDIATELY deconstruct Socialism, this is why Marxists tend to be assholes, too!
Center your unique experience within their metaphysical frame. You call me an idealist, because I reject your metaphysics! Big word go hurt! What? Are you going to lock me in psychiatric care too, because you like the fucking State so much? I can make an argument that Max Stirner is Jesus Christ of nihilism because his parables are like Jesus' parables—his lived egoism against metaphysics, coopted by the Roman State into the metaphysics of hierarchy and into the Church. The fascist can also be a nihilist too, for the fascist deliberately ignores conscience.
Christianity spread, because it was convenient to the materialism of States. Homophobia exists today because Theodosius the Stupid was gaslit by fucking Ambrose of Milan into banning gay sex. It is through history I can turn your black into white, but I am sharing you with this because I know the golden rule of Not Being The Asshole.
The rightist knows 'moralism' as a retort, the leftist knows 'projecting' and 'essentialism' as one too—everyone else knows to not be presumptuous cunts. I am my own! Psychic materialism, I know my reality because I know my ego and my equally-cherished memories. No pathology can measure but my love for my own. It is not innate in me and not to you, and it in contradiction we find our might & construct reality in defiance to materialism and realism.
I am unique, for I lived rhizomatically, networked online; without the coding of materialism by the State and it's numbers. Cyclism is pointless when I don't know it's about the infinite causal chains of power and violence, because it speaks to the rot of realism. Reality is when you reject Nihilism because you know innately that Nietzsche was a damned fascist. I am a communist, because I literally lived a communist reality and now chase socialism as socialism gives me meaning. But, I am not passive. My revolutionary mind wont be curbed by the pathology of States and the European Union.
I would describe my country, Cyprus as the most libertarian country on the world. GESY is fucking great & my neighbors are supportive people. Nozick should go visit us and our "failed" government. Plus, PewDiePie has an account here even though he is in Japan, he is living in communism. We have a lot of porn companies setting up shop here and a big communist party too. We already are minarchists.
I am proud to be in where I am because of it's libertarianism, with conditions ripe not for your fucked socialism; but for communism. Make a commune and shit, the cops here are lazy and the racers keep racing in disorder. Now, we must find our own order and share it with others. I want things to stay that way because I don't harm people but hierarchies over me. So, I would be more than happy to attack the state of reality with my weapons—words.
Revolution has no place where I am, but I may join the communist party to deconstruct into the rhizome of communization. Me and my other are the limits of what I can do. I believe in Jesus, because he was the greatest deconstructor of the Romans' realism—the management of human contradiction to keep circulating materials for a Caesar. But still, I hate the Orthodox Church for what they duplicitly represent—capitalism of thought. So in a way, Cyprus already is in libertarian socialism. I am already in it & have seen it's "failure".
People just defer to the State to do things for it when the State goes "ehhh no. sorry", I know this because the cops visited me. Cyprus is in minarchy, I enjoy it and other people but there is still greed, the realism of property & not their own. I know this because I am my own. One can realize the beauty in meaninglessness by puking, and not going to work because they puked.
I measure my intelligence through how I assign others. There is no number in intelligence unless the State wants you to get a job, but not get your own job. My own job is the arbitrator. Is Judith Butler a credible academic or does she just spout meaningless shit dressed up as intelligence? I say both, because the credible academic comes from spouting meaningless shit, she just expresses her own meaningless shit. That's how I agree with her, that's how I understand her. You just don't remember yourself.
It is not your shit, go take a shit of your own. Reality is a history of resistance against materialism, we must make our own and be proud of it through might and own. This however, leads to either anarchism or fascism. States need rationalism, because states need soldiers. I tread the path of anarchism because fascism fails the strategy of tit-for-tat in it's want for control. It is weak in it's deceit. Nihilism is, and will never be the Deleuzoguattarian rot of accelerationism. I only judge by rot and growth for me and the other in a world that demands I know it's laws.
The Egoistic Construction Of Hierarchy
Idealism to Marxists then is metaphysical realism, one's obsession with other people's bodies. This is why I fucking hate Nietzsch,e his nihilism is
paralyzing—but, not Stirner's! I've been living with a lack of autonomy all along—I have been an absolute, one-man underclass & I will punch up by being everything I can out of my revolutionary egoism. This is why I am a communist.
I act in reality, therefore I (the ego) am mine. Others act on this basis—we effect our will on reality and there's those who care about permission and those who care about the suppression of our wills. Egoism does not preclude this, as our dialectic is destructive—freedom, then; is a mere spook, it true ownership of it is your performance of it; which has inspired the anarchist principle of praxis. Max Stirner hints at & affirms this by claiming: "The union will assuredly offer a greater measure of liberty, as well as (and especially because by it one escapes all the coercion peculiar to state and society life) admit of being considered as “a new liberty”; but nevertheless it will still contain enough of unfreedom and involuntariness. For its object is not this – liberty (which on the contrary it sacrifices to ownness), but only ownness."
Our will is a creative, productive force—through the association of egoists, we create meaning & enact our wills on reality from nothing. We utilize these tools; from words, to productive tools—to navigate reality & enact our will on matter (materialism) through response to stimuli. We then become conscious towards the productive forces of labor and use matter as input into what we call productive goods—substance that is made "sacred" & "untouchable" in it's utility in manipulating matter into more valuable forms. I do not see anyone as 'matter' to be 'manipulated', for we useful at creating our own might together.
In a nascent state society, unconscious egoists are not conscious of reward and punishment; material, hierarchical systems (social system) operated by our repressors, operate on fixed rituals and the forced management of contradiction among the unconscious egoists, making resistance exhausting. It rewards the absence of conflict and punishes the presence of conflict through fixed concepts justifying the arbitrariness of it all to legitimize itself through order—the "synthesis" of the dialectic; the authority promises itself as the synthesis; the resolution of contradiction. The repressor sees the woman as his object, for labor is productive & the savior is the mystifying force of the system, the ego-fascist needs to control reproductive labor, because the egoist has a uterus—they are the embodiment of realpolitik—in left-wing spaces, it manifests in the form of the pastel-and-twee mini-Kissingers among us.
The ego-communist will violently negate this authority when it is able to—for we at our core, are the dismantlers of systems. The ego-fascist will negate freedom through the control over labor and will instrumentalize the saviors, the bureaucrats. That, among many factors; especially through the exploitation of labor, leads to the rise of state society. It is why feminists see rape of women and saviorism & self-legitimizing persecution of drama triangles as the precedents of state society. This "rape-logic" is embedded in our systems, for the state is the social factory of rape & exploitation; the nuclear family merely affirms the power of "man" over "woman", the drilling of "do not rape" as a moral to hide the everyday rape of what states call "women", the producers of this binary division of egos for the expansion of it's workforce—the binary direction of desire backed by violence.
Today, hierarchies direct us into their ways—the bipolar extremity of ego-communism and ego-fascism is forced on us & there is no telling when someone truly becomes either, only through your conscious judgement of their ownness—an egoistic force against authoritarianism. A conscious egoist merely knows these pulls to inform Ownness. So, these individualists have themselves glorified term for anarchy with a fixed praxis, a compelling belief in nothing that merely just distorts any grasp of reality for itself—most blatantly, in their insurrectionary varieties. While nihilism is a spook to my ego, I will not dare police your insurrection for you are a utility to my might—your calls are worth listening to and I will reverberate them into the dissonant conscience of the exhausted masses, for the potential of self-ownership and ownness is contagious among them—hierarchy is unstable.
We know our game theory very well as anarchists, and in instrumentalizing this weakness for our might—we have a chance at 'communism', so that the self-proclaimed Maoists (with their tumor of dialectics and their cancer of principal contradiction) would shed a tear as we finally 'taste the pear' (/ref) of communism. If all genuine knowledge originates in direct experience, then all genuine communism originates in direct experience as well—to use the words of their Chairman. Do not shy away with saying and doing stupid shit! But, do not be so brazen about it in the name of the promise of synthesis and the resolution of contradiction—this is the seed of hierarchy, not autonomy!
So, hurry up and play! Prepare for the coming insurrection... revolution.... general strike or whatever, and amplify the voices of those instrumental to you—or, not! Do not use the state in yourself to categorize others for your lack of organization—or, anything else that you may not have... lest you die a Socratic death in the name of anarch-ism, just like the disruptors of a certain CrimethInc. convergence 16 years ago. I do not give a damn if you are Platformist or a Nihilist—I do not pathologize, categorize or project—even if I punch anyone in the face. Insurrection, revolt, rebellion, transgression—whatever you may call ownness; is the best therapy, as it is yours.
The therapeutic-ness in performing Ownness doesn't even preclude going to a therapist for a sanity-check & in fact, may inform them and yield better results for both therapist and client; unlike the fucking institutionalization of people they don't like the mini-Kissingers among the left may call for—at this point, they may as well just the kill people they don't like with their constant deference to law and institutional psychiatry for their violence. My desire knows no origin, I am a creative nothing—that means I am a force not bound by determinism in the abstract & even the forced determinism of systems I seek pleasure in destroying. It also obviously doesn't mean I want to touch my mom—Freud, you Oedipal essentialist; we do not exist to be personalized and measured!
Rough Essay on Immanent Direct Action
Leftism is against social hierarchies, but enough of us go "wait, we must do this process per my 100,000 pages of metaphysical dialectical theory before we scrape our way to socialism" out of caution and strict adherence to theory before we they commit to an actionable, principled stance against social hierarchy. Some transcend leftism by trying to go immediately against social hierarchies and the legitimization of new social hierarchies & seeking ways to express their desire of abolition—finding themselves in the milieu of anarchy. Anarchy isnt a fixed point in the political compass; it is a nomadic, ever-moving cloud of immanent critique & direct action against fixed hierarchical structures.
So, then—Leftism without anarchy is dry, and we are beyond the promise of fixed goals and fixed structures. We desire to secure our own structure for ourselves and have our meets met—in a way, being post-structuralists and seeking the liberation of subjectivity through anarchy and communization.
Post-structuralists tend to reject fixed structures & meaning and posit that structure and meaning is shaped by power and discourse, which informs much of critical theories, particularly queer theory and intersectionality. Deleuze and Guattari's works are long & infamously have very weird vocabulary—which is why Nick Land's texts, influenced by the duo and to me is a person whose works I see as not worth taking seriously; reads to me as a bunch of philosophizing bullshit, but Deleuze and Guattari can be a great utility to me. You can talk to those who read it or are informed by their works—meaning isn't fixed after all & all interpretations—even the authors; are up for scrutiny and deconstruction, meaning is produced by systems of power and violence like the English language we're using.
Coupled with critical theory & direct action, it has a great potential to realize a new form of anarchist praxis. Marxism is a critical theory on the political economy based on the principle of immanent critique, it is a lens on how the distribution of goods and their production shape power relations in contrast to enlightenment ideals (such as 'natural rights'). Immanent critique is dialectical and is therefore the basis of dialectical materialism, it seeks to find the contradictions between the ideals proposed in fixed, dominant systems/ideologies (encounter) and what is being practiced in reality (negation) in order to find a liberatory solution (reclamation—in this case, communism).
But, to the anarchist—the liberatory solution must be realized through the immediate prefiguration of new relations and the abolition of the old, fixed structures—just as Roosevelt's New Deal prefigured Neoliberalism through policies associated with, and later settled into Keynesian economic policy. This was followed by reaction from the bourgeois Austrian School, whose tactics—capital strike, capital strike, the inherent agonism of the democratic state, if not flat out deception in the press; were essential in shaping the Republican Party's fiscal conservatism (Austrian School) and the inherently unstable conditions of the neoliberal states that presently govern us. Likewise, us anarchists should expect reaction from the party elites and economic elites alike—and, we will be prepared. We will build, feed and then destroy the agents of those who get in the way of emancipation.
Maoism is different in that it believes the party can pick a principal contradiction like apples on a tree destined to be picked in a sequence, which has had deep ramifications (namely for the Uighurs and Tibetans) as China kept much of everything that legitimized the previous nationalist dictatorship and saw the reality of the Party as uncorrupted—they inserted "People's" at the beginning of "Republic of China" and failed to consider how much states are systemically defined by nationalism too. In other words, they thought they were unphantasmed—but, the phantasm of the old system persisted systemically.
Not all application of Maoism is the same, of course—it'd be extremely vacuous to say otherwise to call them a moral 'evil', an idea I wholly reject even if such claim had a 'base'—there is no reason for fixed ideas that legitimize themselves through violence. I have my optimism; albeit a cautious one for all the up-and-coming revolutionaries of today.
For example: The Black Panther Party, while Maoist; was instrumental in the Black Power movement and the prefiguration of new liberatory relations (soup kitchens), new liberatory identities (African-American) to expose the contradictions within the racial hierarchy inherent in the United States' political system, premised on the ideal that 'all men are born equal' while prioritizing the rights of European landowners and slaveowners, as it's a nascent ruling class of racist propertarians defining equality for the people. Many learn from their example and get radicalized into Marxist-Leninism—seeking to repeat the BPP's blueprint.
So, my solution is this instrumentalizing immanent critique in immediate, militant establishing of the liberatory solution—communism, queer liberation, black liberation; in essence, communization & redefining anarchy as the immanent critique and immediate abolition of all forms of hierarchy. Hierarchy, as the fixed, self-legitimizing structures that depend on the forced restriction of individuals' choice such as, but not restricted to:
- capitalism (exploitation of labor through the private ownership of the means of production—liberalism believes in a state to protect what it sees as "individual rights"—the right to procure means of production and exploit labor)
- callout culture (parasitism of systemic oppression to legitimize harassment & stalking, driven by the accumulation of reposts and followers which grants them easier control over discourse, the very logic of capitalism—vindicating the Autonomist theory of the social factory)
- race (a construct based on the identification slaves in the slave trade & the racial hierarchy made during the Spanish colonization of natives)
- nation (the forced performance of a 'national identity' which is constructed through the forced performance of rituals associated with individuals within a nation-state enforcing it's laws and customs within a geographical boundary drawn by imperialism)
- gender (a construct based on the forced division of reproductive labor and the construction of gender identity through the forced performance of rituals superficially associated with reproductive labor)
- statism (the belief in the necessity of a body that has the right to a monopoly of violence, with the implication that people cannot truly govern themselves)
This points to monism, the attribution of singleness to a concept, which I attribute to this the principle of maximizing the range of choice. By writing this, I ultimately seek to expand & affirm the tangible choice of the self and the others I encounter—one that the self can sense and feel; the other in my association must be then able to confirm & support the freedom we take together from hierarchy. That is the only desirable outcome in my relations and my critiques of hierarchies as I can expand this through the deliberate negation of fixed meaning, fixed binaries and fixed structures—expose how they legitimize themselves & deprive others of liberty in their overlapping narratives; justifying their fixedness like a poisonous circulatory system of violence. I see myself in others, the other sees itself in me; I follow tit-for-tat (game theory) and I expect the other to do the same.
We should be beyond the desire to seize the state, when we know that for the 'proletarian state' to wither, the proletariat must make itself obsolete and abolish itself through the cessation of the relations that perpetuate it's own existence (wage labor, exploitation of labor, private ownership over the means of production)—so, why not abolish the proletariat right now? The seizure of the state has little to do with proletarian self-abolition. Because of it's immanence, anarchy doesn't stop at the establishment of communist society which is the common goal of most anarchists—anarchy continues, even after communism. The immanent critique of hierarchy preceding direct action is the dialectical basis of egoist-communism—because after all, our communization doesn't come out of nowhere. It comes out of consciousness and our egoistic desire for freedom.
The communizers of yore may only stop at the achievement of communism, but we are beyond communism—anarchy never ceases as we share a common desire, that being; the desire for freedom unbound by the fixed ideas that systems and hierarchs of old shoved down our throats and gaslit us into thinking they're normal, who now envy our desire for freedom their own drive for control and exploitation deprives them of.
I act in reality, therefore I (the ego) am mine. Others act on this basis - we effect our will on reality and there's those who care about permission and those who care about the suppression of our wills. Egoism does not preclude this, as our dialectic is destructive - freedom, then; is a mere spook, it true ownership of it is your performance of it; which has inspired the anarchist principle of praxis. Max Stirner hints at & affirms this by claiming: "The union will assuredly offer a greater measure of liberty, as well as (and especially because by it one escapes all the coercion peculiar to state and society life) admit of being considered as “a new liberty”; but nevertheless it will still contain enough of unfreedom and involuntariness. For its object is not this – liberty (which on the contrary it sacrifices to ownness), but only ownness."
Our will is a creative, productive force - through the association of egoists, we create meaning & enact our wills on reality from nothing. We utilize these tools; from words, to productive tools - to navigate reality & enact our will on matter (materialism) through response to stimuli. We then become conscious towards the productive forces of labor and use matter as input into what we call productive goods - substance that is made "sacred" & "untouchable" in it's utility in manipulating matter into more valuable forms. I do not see anyone as 'matter' to be 'manipulated', for we useful at creating our own might together.
In a nascent state society, unconscious egoists are not conscious of reward and punishment; material, hierarchical systems (social system) operated by our repressors, operate on fixed rituals and the forced management of contradiction among the unconscious egoists, making resistance exhausting. It rewards the absence of conflict and punishes the presence of conflict through fixed concepts justifying the arbitrariness of it all to legitimize itself through order - the "synthesis" of the dialectic; the authority promises itself as the synthesis; the resolution of contradiction. The repressor sees the woman as his object, for labor is productive & the savior is the mystifying force of the system, the ego-fascist needs to control reproductive labor, because the egoist has a uterus - they are the embodiment of realpolitik - in left-wing spaces, it manifests in the form of the pastel-and-twee mini-Kissingers among us.
The ego-communist will violently negate this authority when it is able to - for we at our core, are the dismantlers of systems. The ego-fascist will negate freedom through the control over labor and will instrumentalize the saviors, the bureaucrats. That, among many factors; especially through the exploitation of labor, leads to the rise of state society. It is why feminists see rape of women and saviorism & self-legitimizing persecution of drama triangles as the precedents of state society. Rape-logic is embedded in our systems, for the state is the social factory of rape & exploitation; the nuclear family merely affirms the power of "man" over "woman", the drilling of "do not rape" as a moral to hide the everyday rape of what states call "women", the producers of this binary division of egos for the expansion of it's workforce - the binary direction of desire backed by violence.
Today, hierarchies direct us into their ways - the bipolar extremity of ego-communism and ego-fascism is forced on us & there is no telling when someone truly becomes either, only through your conscious judgement of their ownness - an egoistic force against authoritarianism. A conscious egoist merely knows these pulls to inform Ownness. So, these individualists have themselves glorified term for anarchy with a fixed praxis, a compelling belief in nothing that merely just distorts any grasp of reality for itself - most blatantly, in their insurrectionary varieties. While nihilism is a spook to my ego, I will not dare police your insurrection for you are a utility to my might - your calls are worth listening to and I will reverberate them into the dissonant conscience of the exhausted masses, for the potential of self-ownership and ownness is contagious among them - hierarchy is unstable.
We know our game theory very well as anarchists, and in instrumentalizing this weakness for our might - we have a chance at 'communism', so that the self-proclaimed Maoists (with their tumor of dialectics and their cancer of principal contradiction) would shed a tear as we finally 'taste the pear' (/ref) of communism. If all genuine knowledge originates in direct experience, then all genuine communism originates in direct experience as well - as the Maoist says. Do not shy away with saying and doing stupid shit! But, do not be so brazen about it in the name of the promise of synthesis and resolution - this is the seed of hierarchy!
So, hurry up and play! Prepare for the coming insurrection... revolution.... general strike or whatever, and amplify their voices - or, not! Do not use the state in yourself to categorize others for your lack of organization - or, anything else that you may not have... lest you die a Socratic death in the name of anarch-ism, just like the disruptors of a certain CrimethInc. convergence 16 years ago. I do not give a damn if you are Platformist or a Nihilist - I do not pathologize, categorize or project - even if I punch anyone in the face. Insurrection, revolt, rebellion, transgresson - whatever you may call ownness; is the best therapy, as it is yours.
The therapy of Ownness doesn't even preclude going to a therapist for a sanity-check & in fact, may inform them and yield better results for both therapist and client; not the fucking institutionalization of people they don't like the mini-Kissingers among the left may call for - at this point, they may as well just kill people they don't like with their constant deference to law and institutional psychiatry for their violence.
Communism And It's Property
Stirner's deconstruction of philosophy & ideology was a theoretical paving stone for Marxism, in that it compelled the turn from idealism to materialism. To understand Marx, you should understand the relationship between Marx/Engels with Stirner, Proudhon and Bakunin (probably beneath consideration, he's an antisemite) and their unspoken shared opposition to idealism. But, I would consider Stirner to be more nihilist than idealist because he calls for action against all authority—the concise basis of egoist anarchism which would bear fruit with the characterization of Stirner as an anarchist by us who read and translate his works. His critique of ideology may have inspired the Marxian theory of base and superstructure.
Stirner is NOT individualist nor collectivist as he posits the association of egoists—it tacitly rejects solipsism as he points to spooks & for someone to own that specter they should deconstruct it and realize its origins, i.e. "retard" & it's origins in systemic, cultural ableism—the realization of such is a crucial step to reclamation, as a target of the slur myself. I am not an atomized 'individual' or a 'part of a collective'—I am nothing, and I can only make new meaning for myself (non-binary) in the place of the old meaning (male) that has been forced on me with others who have vitriolically experienced the removal of their meaning (gender-based violence). Accordingly, you don't need a reason to defy and resist abuse—however, it is more prudent to find and negate the structures that create similar abusers, as we generally see ourselves in the other.
I set my causes on nothing, that is—liberation through negation. Nothingness, for the reason of my actions and pursuit of meaning is the greatest primer of my agency, for science comes from nothing but it constructs what we call the empirical results of the scientist which can be co-opted by authority. I see the meaning in myself in other people—it is telling of others' own privilege and lack of agency when they pry into the intrinsic essence of a person that harmed them and their association when people are egoists. They do what they do—there is no true reason for action inherent in the person, there are tangible structures of power, indoctrination and violence giving them incentives and privileges. To quote Friedrich Engels' prescient quote similar matters around Stirner:
"In the first place it's a simple matter to prove to Stirner that his egoistic man is bound to become communist out of sheer egoism. That's the way to answer the fellow. In the second place he must be told that in its egoism the human heart is of itself, from the very outset, unselfish and self-sacrificing, so that he finally ends up with what he is combating. These few platitudes will suffice to refute the one-sidedness. But we must also adopt such truth as there is in the principle. And it is certainly true that we must first make a cause our own, egoistic cause, before we can do anything to further it – and hence that in this sense, irrespective of any eventual material aspirations, we are communists out of egoism also, and it is out of egoism that we wish to be human beings, not mere individuals." ~Letter from Engels to Marx in Paris—Barmen, 19 November 1844
In an association of egoists, a new independent meaning can be made—and, if you see everyone in the past and present as egoists, you may come to the conclusion that reality is socially constructed. We've lived in state societies that exploited our labor for millennia, their socially constructed concepts that compel us to obey them, that legitimize the authority of the State through their capillary systems of indoctrination and violence that compel us to reify it & treat it as a necessity against the Hobbesian war of all against all. Stirner tells us to reject & disobey the fixed illusions that have been forced on us through negation and reclamation—communism tells us to attack the very factory of specters in the material world—the State and Capitalism, lest we become self-justifying hierarchs ourselves.
From this, we can conclude that communism is neither truly individualist nor collectivist as it is a false binary that puts the ideal of the 'self' and 'other' in antagonism. It is simply stateless & classless; the only way to achieve it and sustain it is through the direct ownership over the means of production because the talented machinists I know are far better at meeting my tangible needs than my boss ever will. I will do what I will with the productive goods, and share my products with my association because I find fulfillment in doing that & we fulfil our shared meaning by having our tangible needs met without force from anybody—why should I let a landowner who is opaque in their intent and actions & compels me to accept their authority make food for me?
Of course, Marx—while he rejects the authority of the 'bourgeois state', defers to historical materialism as a means to achieve communism, a stateless, classless society; necessitates a socialist transition that will supposedly wither away. Personally, I interpret the dictatorship of the proletariat as a temporary state apparatus that protects the workers who now directly own the value of their labor and directly own the means of production without deference to the state in terms of what to do with worker-owned productive goods. The purpose of this state is meant to facilitate the self-abolition of the proletariat, as a state; without it's very instrument of class warfare through the absence of an underclass to exploit is bound to wither away.
The closest realization of this interpretation of the dictatorship of the proletariat are the Zapatista territories today whose governance have been seeing a trend of decentralization as they have greatly separated militias from civil affairs & are commited to their immediate local struggle, instead of grand teleological narratives—it is neither 'anarchist', nor 'Leninist'. It points to the mistakes of us anarchists, too—we have made communism (a fixed goal) out of anarchy, the abolition of authority—enough of us see anarchist society as a destination, instead of an actionable philosophy against hierarchy, which people already, but selectively attack out of their privilege thanks to the division of all against all by partisan politics, the political economy and geopolitics.
Neoliberalism and the Death of Reform
I would describe neoliberalism as the modern-day embrace of states' own volatile dissonance between Keynesianism (capitalism with government intervention in recession and depression) and Austrianism (unrestrained of the exploitation of labour to create profit, justified by natural rights) which is self-destructive. They do nothing but manage the mode of circulation—not the capitalist mode of production, prone to capital strikes which has only been thwarted once (Roosevelt). These tend to be bipartisan due to the majoritarian, (ironically collectivist) nature of liberal democracy—in the US it's the Democrats and Republicans, in Germany it's the SPD and CSU. Here, we have laissez-faire economics and welfare because we have an uneven fight between DISY and AKEL. These parties serve to divide the population against each other for it's own sake, seize the presidency only to be stopped by striking businessowners & use the violent instruments of the state for itself
The world is under an unstable statist, moralistically chauvinist ideology whose clashing interests, the risk of an assertive working class and acceleration of their exploitation through austerity cause the business cycle that ends up radicalizing everybody—exacerbated by the for-profit nature of capitalist press incentivizing sensationalism within the nation-state which favors nationalists and fascists. The capital strike has been thwarted once, and that is Roosevelt who was seminal to; and arguably prefigured neoliberalism, knowing it as the form in which capitalist democratic states take to manage the business cycle through electoral politics—set the stage for the volatile political cycle between Keynesians and Austrians which became a defining feature of neoliberalism.
Since then, the thwarting of capital strikes never really happened again as capital sought new ways to justify itself through the conservative drift of the Republicans, forming neoliberalism as we know it through the self-legitimizing nature of capitalism—through it's growth, globalization and the forced liberalizations of the IMF; the capital strike has become capital flight, just like that—reformism failed again. From these conclusions—electoralism has shown itself as a gamble with lives because of it's embrace of the implied notion that people can't govern themselves and can merely only vote for representatives, who are unaccountable for an arbitrary period of time, whose petitions are pretty much at their mercy; judging from these modern examples & the party's incentives to agitate subjects in the name of securing votes within a system dominated by strike-happy, big business-owners.
It comes as no surprise that even our communist party, ΑΚΕΛ has recuperated. May we do anarchy and communization now—or, we die as undignified wage slaves. We will do what leftists have stalled us on for long enough, and it is the immediate communization of our relations—negate our relations with the old, and show them that the dispossessed are conscious—ideally, within an organization that creates the conditions for a social revolution that destroys the state, not seize it—prefiguration through communization, direct action through the negation of egoism.
The War Against Dialectics
Essentialism is the master of politics. The problem with those trying to essentialize trans people into a binary is that the imposition is political, people are trying to use science to justify a political structure when science just has a thesis divorced from imposition and politics, which informs experiments and repeated results which inform a broader model—a model that can be challenged. There is nothing objective about it. This discourse is what led me to egoism and well, communism too & is why science is fundamentally incompatible with politics; let alone scientific socialism being used to justify the state—not as a useful tool to navigate capitalist relations in a communist economy, as the Zapatistas have been trying under their noses.
Psychology is a microscope and schizoanalysis is a hawk's eye view on human behavior. They have something in common—they do not blame or essentialize, they are instrumental and create an almost productive agonism; almost as if schizoanalysis' diagnoses of systems are the thesis and psychology provide the experiment; without the potential of authoritarian mutation orthodox dialectical materialism has, in with Marx's partial rejection of Hegel as idealist (without interrogating how these 'ideals' are produced) and retained Hegel's determinism in historical materialism. Those who are willing can use the sciences and humanities for their liberation but not defer to it like an authority.
Our war is one of negation and reclamation—dialectical materialism, per deleuze's 'dialectics as mutation'—the synthesis creates a more complex, almost capillary structure of power and violence, and creates more binaries; the structure turns from a sapling to a tree of state-enforced "syntheses" to further mange the contradictions in it. As such the state also grows more complex, as there is more labor with better production techniques that allow for the greater profit for those who exploit labor. Without exploitation, communism may entail the liberation of desire and subjectivity from compulsion created by the exploitation of labor and the alienation from what they make, using the machines that belong to an absent businessowner.
The contradiction between businessowner and worker comes from one's imposition of choice over the other—creating a hierarchy, which is constructed by material conditions & class conflict creating the incentive for justification—the superstructure to legitimize it's violence. It is from these contradictions that we get the material conditions for communism as a concept (a purely teleological synthesis) to emerge—as seen with historical examples, like Mazdak vs. Khosrow I; Marx versus Capitalism which in both cases, may have accelerated the scale of class conflict & violence without negating the structures producing conflict.
In that regard, egoist-communism is simply when I instrumentalize communist relations as a way to perform my ownness infront of the state's compulsion & seeing others as egoists shaped by similar compulsions and privileges. I am conscious of systems and concepts that compel me, why I work; for whom I work; and I negate of this through the assertion of my self-ownership against this compulsion, in order to reclaim it through direct action which will later inform the next action against this system. To instrumentalize this dialectic for your freedom, is to be a conscious egoist.
Though, personally I see a pedantic point of conflict with a much reputable egoist, Recurring Paradox on psychoanalysis. Personally, I've been leaning towards schizoanalysis, a radical critique of psychoanalysis that seeks to liberate desire—as my ego is unknowable, because I state my affairs on nothing, don't I? I act in reality, therefore I am mine—the "other" is mine too. I know no commandment of taking. I dont give a reason as to why the sun is mine when I bask in it. Their content has been very informative in the formulation of my own egoism—to the point of perhaps de-Stirnerizing it.
Though, it could just be that I don't know what she means by 'psychoanalysis'. Recurring Paradox does cite Foucault and Butler at times—pleasantly so, as the former sees the most influence from Deleuze & Guattari. She also has integrated Butler's framework of identity through the performance of Ownness which I have to admit, I borrowed from her—no surprise. It aligns pretty well with the aims and tenets of schizoanalysis, the liberation of the "unregulated potential of a body"; not in the essentialist, "human" sense from the hierarchies that try to constrain and measure it.
I know some tenets of schizoanalysis which I, and you can expand on—people do not have any "essence" in them, their consciousness and desires do not exist to be measured; but they do act based on structural incentives that hinder and direct their will. They are shaped by micropolitical systems which may feed into macropolitics. So, a schizoanalyst may not blame the person for stealing a diamond, but rather they may tell the person "this is why you have to steal the diamond—many causal chains of exploitation that make getting the diamond difficult". It doesn't really preclude just punching the diamond-thief in the face. Keep in mind im not quite well read on Deleuze & Guattari. Yet.
While im not well read I mostly sort of came to similar conclusions myself, based on practice without personalizing issues too much. So, I kind of just walk the talk, then talked the walk my way into anarchism. I have the intuition that D&G may have been trying affirm the not the inevitability of communism, but rather—it's necessity. (take this with a grain of salt). In doing so, D&G may have indirectly disproved the transition from capitalist state to a socialist state or radically distanced themselves. The problem of capitalism isn't the class contradiction—but rather, the management of contradictions that state socialism—even council communism and mutualism may repeat in their planned economies. So then, our "socialist transition" starts to look different—currency as a mere interface to capitalism to procure capital for an internally communist economy.
So, the egoism of all engages in a destructive dialectic with systems—I encounter, I perform negation (ownness) and I reclaim. It can be liberatory to the underclass of micropolitics (whence feminism, youth liberation, environmentalism, socialism & anarchism, even)—but, it can also be an affirmation of one's privilege and a denial of how the micropolitics rhymes with the macro; most clearly, in the form of fatalism—affirmation of, and complete deference to macropolitical privilege.
In essence, egoism is anarchy of mind; it is put into practice through self-ownership that expands and reinforces one's might; ownness. It works on the basis of "I act in reality, there for I am mine"—not the "I think, therefore I am" of essentialist Cartesian solipsism. Egoism doesn't really preclude the internalization of hierarchy either, especially in the final stage part of the dialectic which breaks up and rewires the structure of a concept to reinforce it's will; personally, I like to break up hierarchies and fixed sequences altogether. That can be used for all sorts of things which may introduce a new extreme; when there is Ego-Communism as a concept, we await an Ego-Fascism.
Internally, it is done through a destructive dialectic where one encounters a compelling concept, negates it through ownness and reclaims it; through an association of egoists, they create a new socially constructed reality. There is no clear definition of 'morality', it is an ill-defined spook; like all others, produced by political systems that convince you they're normal—it is subjective and is a restriction on your will especially in discourse that leaves your might mystified. The aggregate of the mediums in which egoists make their own are what create reality.
I am receptive of criticism because criticism doesn't fall from the sky, systems produce our conflicts—I am in under no obligation to decline or take criticism; knowledge is a tool that is best instrumentalized based on our circumstances, as I do not believe in spectral truths and falsehoods. But, rather a collage of what to take and discard for myself. In my case—it is whichever what expands and sustains our association's range of action based on my judgement of the conflicting conditions created by hierarchy. As such, forced and self-righteous critiques may be discarded as counterproductive.
Ownness varies too—an egoist may do an action when there is a systemic incentive for it, but becomes a spook when they are not conscious of the incentive; they may go around and play with the rules as some kind of 'postmodern prank'—that's a spark of ownness. In a way, egoism tends to be infectious especially when an unconscious egoist is in an association of conscious egoists. Ego-Fascism (or just fascism, really) is the conscious egoism—conscious of systemic incentives and domination; that seeks power to maximize & legitimize it's own might over all—It is the war machine co-opted by state; it's saviorist supersoldier that hides in the language of liberation.
Later queer theorists corroborated on this, like Butler who said that identity is performed. When unconscious egoists personalize or moralize a problem—the issue isn't that they are "spooked", they are rather not conscious that they are using the concept of morality and pathology given to them by oppressive institutions and states for their own might. In social media, this leads to cancel culture and their parasitism of systemic social hierarchies—in anarchist thought, it's pernicious as they are unconscious of their societal privilege too.
Psychoanalysis; the ceaseless search and definition of the "self" within hierarchy is closer to psychoparalysis & at worst, enables 'desires' divorced from systems of violence like the Oedipus complex instead of navigating them; it is hierarchy of the mind & fatally personalizes interpersonal issues under the pretense of clarity, tacitly turning people into parasites of systemic domination. My position, can be referred to as almost anti-psychiatry (because I, an autistic guy likes literal, consistent language), but it could be a kind of alter-psychiatry, because the target is the failure of institutions to adopt the social model of disability in favor of treating "non-normative" conditions.
Overall, I am pleased to see fellow neurodivergent folk gravitating to my philosophy; as I have been drawn to Egoist-Communism by Vikky Storm, another neurodivergent who stated that bureaucracy is indeed, a cruel, totalizing barrier to us neurodivergent folk. My psychiatrist was helpful in diagnosing my autism, but I am aware my therapy is divorced from awful institutions governing them—and this is a privileged position I am conscious of. Perhaps, we could find a way around these institutions prefiguratively for an instrumental 'mad anarchism', like how the queers fought for their own liberation, sans the recuperation of our shared queer movement in our times.
The schizoanalyst—the freedom-expanding war machine then, is the "moral immoral" to the usual leftist—the anti-hierarchical aim of leftism (thus a critical part of the aims of how leftists construct morality) without moralism. To quote Noam Chomsky in his debate with Foucault:
"I had never seen such an amoral—not immoral, amoral—person in my life."
And everyday, I wake up—look at the mirror & ponder similar such things: How am I moral yet, so immoral?
My sole critique on Anti-Oedipus, so far; is that it too is ironically, organized a bit too dialectically, starting with a polemic on psychoanalysis when they want the reader to be an un-co-opted war machine seeking to liberate the potential of their body without organs, which Stirner implicitly (but not literally) prioritized in his master work, "The Unique and It's Property" in contrast to Anti-Oedipus which assumes the reader already knows Psychoanalysis, somewhat hindering the accessibility of the work and threw me off.
The war machine contradicts with the state, but the state wants the war machine—the state wants soldiers, as it fundamentally wants to manage contradictions that it forces on it's subjects & soon, other states; whence the Marxian saying that the state is an 'instrument of class warfare'. If so, the most effective form of state is a state led by saviors—the Fordism of "Brave New World"; the full ignorance of matter in favor of the atomized "Self"—communism is the inevitable concept in those conditions, not the inevitability of reality.
The solution to historical materialism then, is to break the cycle in order to liberate all our desires. Our "scientific experiment" is to force it to reckon with it's contradictions from our liberated, chaotic & communistic zones.
Outline Of The Social Counter-Economy
What can we learn from the Zapatistas and their economy? Their stunning example of a stateless, socialist confederation is a hopeful testament to how their stateless society can persist and maintain it's mode of production in a sea of neoliberal states, even if the youth in the Zapatista territories have unfortunately been leaving for the cities in recent times.
In the Zapatista economy, the mode of production takes great precedence over the mode of circulation. The Zapatistas only tactically sell their surplus products for money—goods that end up getting wanted by no one in the community, the money will then be used to procure capital necessary for production of goods. They operate based on the basis of usus and fructus—the means of production and it's product are owned by individuals using it in a cooperative. Since basic needs are perishable, they practically remain free.
In this inspired hypothetical prefigurative system, all the money goes to a communal bank that gives out zero-interest loans, which are then repaid with a labor notice that merely gives the "creditor" a non-binding request that they sell "x dollars worth of goods" out of surplus product—ensuring force is minimized, unlike the imperious reciprocity of classical mutual credit and labor notes that depend on mere teleological precedent to legitimize it's fixity and violence. Structurally, it affirms my principle that communism entails the liberation of subjectivity—if you want something, you get it within our wholly material limitations.
Of course, this makes the system socialist—not communist, insofar it's relations with the outside world is concerned. But, it is this socialism that may force capitalism to reckon with our communization—we will have to protect ourselves from the state & allow our goods to sell to the capitalist markets which will be expensive as they sell and profit from labor, based on these (reductive) bullet points:
- this "socialism": cost of capital (intermediate goods + productive goods + redundant costs for repair)
- capitalism: capital + wages + profit + taxes + interest
The added variables amounting to more expensive prices backed by the violence of the law, versus our costs limited to just intermediate goods may lead to market prices crashing—our lack of currency among us is a great strength too, as the businessowner has to juggle between the usury banks use to artificially maintain their supply of currency & the taxes governements create as a response to the class conflict created by fiscal conservatism & the transience of Keynesian intervention in the circulation of capital. This is how we negate the markets, by creating non-state structures that take advantage of the price differential as just one tactic among many against capitalism. This is not a means towards any new society, but rather a measure against material limits.
In any 'non-violent' means to procure capital, it'll be on us to sell our cheap surplus products in the market, valuing our labour alone as the would-be profit goes to the communal bank, and take out a loan to get productive goods. So, our opposition to the laws of the state are once again instrumental, alongside the zero-interest communal loans that could used to procure means of production through the surplus product we sell to the outside market. Considering the ridiculous hurdles of capitalism held together by the fragile tape of natural rights, expropriation of productive goods might be even an afterthought—we do not know peace nor war, but the monism of liberation. This is what sets us apart from agorism.
To some, expropriation of capital is the most ethical thing to do for them—considering the chains of exploitation that was put into the creation of capital—whence the very structural necessity of the Global South's exploitation, demanding lesser and lesser wages to maintain the high wages of the West. Should they consider it, it is preferable to give them support in the expropriation of capital owned by businessowners into the confederacy—or, send militants to get a job at a workplace to procure productive property for us; either through temporary wage labor, or much preferably—the unionization of the workers to seize our means of production for us. Alternatively, individuals can also take out loans from central banks & avoid re-paying the bank (strategic debt repudiation) to procure capital that way as they are defended from debt collectors.
The system is not mutualist either, we do not try to quantify labor-time just to pay mutual loans through labor notes backed by violence—it is one of the things that differentiates anarchism from socialism, and the loaned currency is only used for interaction outside of the internal communist economy of the confederation as a means to secure intermediate and productive goods. It addresses the imperative of labor apparent in a lot of socialist tendencies. Labor-time, however; remains a useful metric when considering the aforementioned non-enforced 'labor notices'.
The individuals can given a notice of "you can go buy this capital and work for this amount hours to make back the surplus products for the commune" by the communal bank. This is the labor-time prescribed by the non-enforceable labor notice, which can be turned into a summation of the labor time of all laborers in a commune, the collective labor time (C.L.T). The 'collective labor-time' of the commune in this theory as, it is the total amount of labor the entire commune should perform to meet the needs required for the external procurement of capital and the maintenance of living conditions.
The necessary amount of hours is the load distributed among all workers through this sum (CLT) that is plugged into a formula for labor-time per laborer, which is CLT / Σ where Σ are the amount of laborers in a commune. The laborer is given a broad range of working hours, from the labor-time per worker to the labour-time in the labor notice & vice versa. The notice is not used as a medium of exchange as the internal economy in the commune is based entirely on use-value.
This allows for the laborer to work whenever they want, constrained only by material conditions & the surplus goods the commune sells to procure capital (ideally through the black market)—securing a form of participatory economics that is relegated to the mere procurement of capital; productive and intermediary goods. This allows for the labor-time to be minimized and to turn zero after communism through the abolition of the value-form and the internal communist economic relations within the confederation, as these mechanisms are only a defense against the outside capitalist world.
So, I would call this economic system a form of left-wing "agorism"—it doesn't preclude violent revolution, however but is useful in maintaining confederacies which have established themselves through violence. Workers have an incentive want more for as little work as possible & vice versa for the businessowner—creating class conflict within capitalism. After the revolution, there will be no central banks to issue the currency we've used solely to interact with markets outside of our confederation, which establishes communism through the prefiguration of communist relations and the abolition of the value-form.
It is why Keynes was rather mute regarding wages, supporting collective bargaining of the workers & presuming goodwill from the businessowner—which is a dangerous thing to presume from a structure as exploitative as capitalism. But, we shouldn't presume an end that is just as likely to end in totalitarianism as communism as counter-economics for a social revolution. We ought to defend ourselves from their violence. After the reaction from the now fiscally-conservative Republicans, the state has 'sublated' into neoliberalism. Thus, the notion that there is no human nature has been vindicated.
I am neither 'cooperative' nor 'greedy'—there are structures and systems that produce the egoistic incentive for greed and cooperation; wholly backed by the violence that legitimizes a structure, a structure that needs cop-brained, managerial-brained, state-brained people who treat them as fixed and worthy of enforcement. Likewise, the countereconomy isn't a means to end in and of itself; unlike SEK3's Agorism—but, it is supposed to be something complementary to social revolution; further reinforced by the fact that this is dependent on the products of fixed, contradictory hierarchies as a means to dissolve itself.
We will also have to learn more from the Zapatistas and their system, and support their struggle by donating and amplifying and reading their communiques. They are the most hopeful example of another world with communistic relations, yet—perhaps our fight as "anarchists" may have to be as non-ideological & more attuned to our own unique local struggles—further necessitating the need of immanent critique and critical theory amid our struggle against state and capital as a complement to anarchy, the constant abolition of authority and hierarchy.
They have proved that ideology, with it's blabber on teleologies are nothing more than a folly when sacralized and placed above ourselves when the Zapatistas' multitudes and practices deviated heavily from any rigid theory. Deep down—our ideologies are tools, use them—play with them, have discourse with likeminded fellows in that field, do not concern yourself with "ideological coherence"—seize the means of your intellectual production!
A Final Picture of Communism
I dont think labor would be prerequisite in communism as there should be no one to dictate the very subjective worth of people, which when systematized, results in hierarchy—especially in a world that lacks the valueform (money), there is kind of no essence in individuals that naturally compels them to work—you work because you do or your needs demand it. To me, communism entails the liberation of subjectivity
If they need food, water, shelter and trinkets; they should be able to get it, but should consider it based on the structural and material limitations of their association, or commune as in communism, the people you know own the productive goods and we may federate (probably transiently and ad-hoc, so world confederalism) to coordinate resources and intermediate goods among communes. Communist justice may probably entail forcing homophobes to go on drag shows or something, idk.
If you compel someone to work, it'll because there's not enough labor. That's less authority and more caretaking. Of course, the Ayn Rands in this world won't like that & we may kind of just shrug. It isn't moral, because it will not be a fixed justification to force everyone to work. It isn't treated as a precedent unlike capitalist "natural rights", as the hierarchies compelling people to do labor cease to exist. Nowadays, precedents matter insofar the systemic and relational domination of people are concerned, because intersectionality is real and visceral as we are in state societies backed by violence.
As for fully automated luxury gay space communism, it'll make sense if historical materialism were to extend past communism as the natural sciences have let us land to the moon & send satellites to planets and minor bodies—the natural sciences will persist and lead us to the full expansion of our choices, laughing at the face of biological and scientific 'laws' which is just using the language of the States of yore to call repeated, tangible observations that affirm a model that represents an ultimately unknowable, constructed reality.
Of course, this is just historical materialism, a deterministic theory that should be treated as one lens to see economic history, not an inevitable future—we'll have to make our hands really dirty should we want to realize this, because communism—sustained through anarchy; isn't just about "innovation" and "progress", it is about realizing our full range of choices unconstrained by hierarchy, binaries and structures.
I may seek 'unity' with the Marxist, but on my terms. I expect the Marxist to seek 'unity' with me on theirs too; in a common, shared performance of Ownness. In our convergence, I want to know the other; not the distant theory they loosely identify with. The revolution, as 1994 in Chiapas have shown; might know no flag nor ideology. When will our anarchisms, our egoisms and our socialisms last—when the moment demands it?