A Chaos Marxism Primer

[Cain]

You know, it is entirely possible here that the word "ego" is being used as a modified form of false consciousness.

[LMNO]

We're gonna need a glossary form Dolores to clarify the terms, then.

[Cramulus]

Dolores thinks that individuals are incapable of changing the world - only groups can change the world. And any kind of group work involves a degree of surrendering the self to the group mind. As long as you're tied to the toys that we use to play dress up with the self, you are a bad channel for the new world to come through.

And again, how can someone hold that kind of stance if they themselves do not have a strong Ego?

I keep trying but I haven't been able to recall a group of ego-less individuals that 'changed the world'. Yet, I can think of plenty of egocentric individuals, and groups which have.

Parts of this philosophy seem kinda confused to me.

Do you think that the civil rights movement would have taken off if people weren't willing to go to jail for it?

Imagine if Martin Luther King tapped out before they cuffed him.

If you really believe in something, you have to be willing to put your self in the back seat.

[Don Coyote]

Dolores thinks that individuals are incapable of changing the world - only groups can change the world. And any kind of group work involves a degree of surrendering the self to the group mind. As long as you're tied to the toys that we use to play dress up with the self, you are a bad channel for the new world to come through.

And again, how can someone hold that kind of stance if they themselves do not have a strong Ego?

I keep trying but I haven't been able to recall a group of ego-less individuals that 'changed the world'. Yet, I can think of plenty of egocentric individuals, and groups which have.

Parts of this philosophy seem kinda confused to me.

Do you think that the civil rights movement would have taken off if people weren't willing to go to jail for it?

Imagine if Martin Luther King tapped out before they cuffed him.

If you really believe in something, you have to be willing to put your self in the back seat.

And yet he put himself in the posistion for that to happen instead of just accepting the status quo.

[Captain Utopia]

I mean, to me it seems like the quest for enlightenment makes people less effective at directing tangible change in the world.  It's stripping away aspects of individuality, and for what?  Why is it so repugnant to want to express aspects of your individuality?  Isn't it just branding?  It may not be pure, it may leave an unpleasant taste in your mouth, but we know it's an effective way to enact change.

Our reality has archons, prison guards if you will, who create the world we're living in. These are people whose beliefs and attitudes and goals affect us on a day to day basis. Most of these people work in politics or commerce. Sometimes we get lucky and a guy like Ghandi or Julian Assange or Timothy Leary rises to the top and something new gets injected into the system. What makes those the "good guys" IMO is that they base their actions on the betterment of our world, not just their own bank accounts. Timothy Leary didn't try to wake up the public so that he could get laid. He wanted to wake up the public, teach people how to operate their brains, and he cared about this so much that he was willing to go to jail for it.

My knowledge of Leary is low.. but didn't he effectively invent his persona to enable him to launch/lead the psychedelic revolution?  In the sense that it matters little if he threw his ego a bone here and there, because being the hip prof who gets funky with tripped-out hippies was all part of the narrative.  If "free love" wasn't branding, I don't know what was.

Dolores thinks that individuals are incapable of changing the world - only groups can change the world. And any kind of group work involves a degree of surrendering the self to the group mind.

Absolutely.

As long as you're tied to the toys that we use to play dress up with the self, you are a bad channel for the new world to come through.

To me the trick seems to be to create a narrative which enables your ego to keep itself occupied/content with toys while satisfying a much broader goal.

If you really believe in something, you have to be willing to put your self in the back seat.

I disagree that it's a hard rule - sometimes self-martyrdom is ego-fulfillment.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Dolores thinks that individuals are incapable of changing the world - only groups can change the world. And any kind of group work involves a degree of surrendering the self to the group mind. As long as you're tied to the toys that we use to play dress up with the self, you are a bad channel for the new world to come through.

And again, how can someone hold that kind of stance if they themselves do not have a strong Ego?

I keep trying but I haven't been able to recall a group of ego-less individuals that 'changed the world'. Yet, I can think of plenty of egocentric individuals, and groups which have.

Parts of this philosophy seem kinda confused to me.

Do you think that the civil rights movement would have taken off if people weren't willing to go to jail for it?

Imagine if Martin Luther King tapped out before they cuffed him.

If you really believe in something, you have to be willing to put your self in the back seat.

Willing to fight, go to jail or be a martyr aren't necessarily ego-less acts, are they?

In fact, wouldn't the sense of self be almost a necessity for people involved in civil rights?

I guess it depends on what we mean by 'ego'. In the Freudian sense, the ego would be absolutely necessary for anyone like King to function. If we use the term "false consciousness" as mentioned by Cain, I don't think it would necessarily enter into the discussion of King and the Civil Rights movement.

But, again... it all depends on what we mean by 'ego'.

[LMNO]

I think we're having another Term War.

Is the goal to abandon the idea of self, or to submit the self to a higher cause?  Because those are two very different things.

[Captain Utopia]

Good point.  I should really read more of the source material before spagging up this thread :-D

[Luna]

Dolores thinks that individuals are incapable of changing the world - only groups can change the world. And any kind of group work involves a degree of surrendering the self to the group mind. As long as you're tied to the toys that we use to play dress up with the self, you are a bad channel for the new world to come through.

And again, how can someone hold that kind of stance if they themselves do not have a strong Ego?

I keep trying but I haven't been able to recall a group of ego-less individuals that 'changed the world'. Yet, I can think of plenty of egocentric individuals, and groups which have.

Parts of this philosophy seem kinda confused to me.

There's a difference between having a strong ego and doing things for the sole purpose of feeding that ego.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think we're having another Term War.

Is the goal to abandon the idea of self, or to submit the self to a higher cause?  Because those are two very different things.

I agree.

[Placid Dingo]

The way I followed it;

1. Capitilism is inherently bad because it needs an opressor and an opressed.

2. A group can destroy capitalism by making a viable cultural alternative.

3. This change can only come from real things.

4. Ideas can become real things when they alter human behavior (we can think of this as magic)

5. To spread real ideas and be part of a group solution you need to be a part of something larger than yourself.

6. This is hard because we see ourselves as individuals, but...

7. Our ego has grown up in an abusive home.

8. Because our ego has been shaped and moulded by Capitalusm, our sense of individuality is built around choices that are adventagous to the continuing supremacy of Capitalusm.

9. To dedicate ourself to a higher cause we must retrain our ego into serving this new master, against it's subcobcioys Capitalist inclinations.

[Telarus]

I've been following this, and I think that I can add some understanding.


From the language used in this thread, "Ego" has the connotation of a static object, or at least one that stays in the same "shape/form", like say, your Thumb, or your Nose. You consider your ego "an extension" of yourself, but the only thing we have to model that on is our own body image, which changes slowly and "keeps it's basic form".


But I think this is EXACTLY where the problem lies. The Ego is not a static thing, you are constantly building it from the 'chaos' where the internal you and the external environment meet. It DOES have feedback loops, and these can lock it down into a dangerously static state.

When we say that the Ego is an Illusion, do not mean that it is "not real", we mean that it has no Permanence.

But, as that is the case, if we Kill it, oooh, it'll be back. We might find our ego in a formless, structureless void for a brief time until it re-coalesces, but it WILL be back.

The experience of 'no-mind' helps, because we come back with a greater understanding of our Ego, and how to hack it, even if just on an intuitive level.

[Cramulus]

The way I followed it;

1. Capitilism is inherently bad because it needs an opressor and an opressed.

2. A group can destroy capitalism by making a viable cultural alternative.

3. This change can only come from real things.

4. Ideas can become real things when they alter human behavior (we can think of this as magic)

5. To spread real ideas and be part of a group solution you need to be a part of something larger than yourself.

6. This is hard because we see ourselves as individuals, but...

7. Our ego has grown up in an abusive home.

8. Because our ego has been shaped and moulded by Capitalusm, our sense of individuality is built around choices that are adventagous to the continuing supremacy of Capitalusm.

9. To dedicate ourself to a higher cause we must retrain our ego into serving this new master, against it's subcobcioys Capitalist inclinations.

The experience of 'no-mind' helps, because we come back with a greater understanding of our Ego, and how to hack it, even if just on an intuitive level.

yes, that's apt... The Nafs that we're talking about can be translated as "ego" but also "everyday mind". Kill it with fire!

and I would agree that Dolores has False Consciousness in mind as well

"Not to borrow the strength of another, nor to rely on one's own strength; to cut off past and future thoughts, and not to live within the everyday mind... then the Great Way is right before your eyes."- Samurai Lapin Yamamoto Tsunetomo


Edit to add: I just learned this word Kenosis which seems to point at a similar idea - of emptying yourself so as to act as a vessel

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

With that in mind I will read it again.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think Chaos Marxism is actually a pretty apt name for it.. Dolores combines marxism and discordia - from my point of view, it's a pretty fresh take on things.

Marxism doesn't work.  There's no point in throwing energy into something that is utterly non-functional.