Anarchat

Neoteric Marxism, left or right?

Is Neoteric Marxism a left wing ideology, or a right wing ideology? This is a question that's been asked a few times, and no one has been able to give a full answer, but today we're here to answer that question.

But before giving an answer we must ask, what is left and what is right?

The left is politics done in the interest of the proletariat, while the right, politics done in the interest of the bourgeoisie, but Neoteric Marxism is neither of those. It is like an arrow, going straight to it's goal, communism, it does not care if the means to reach it, not caring about who is a “liberal” or a “true Neoteric Marxist”, if liberalism gentrifies reality, then it will use liberalism, if anarcho-capitalism gentrifies reality, so be it, and in the same way, if socialism gentrifies reality, it can be used.

It is not a question of left or right, but a question of the most direct line to communism, and it has deemed it to be gentrification.

Neoteric Marxism rejects left and right. It also rejects the dichotomy of state and anarchy, instead going for a pragmatic approach, like a horse with blinders on, marching forwards towards full liberation, does not care if the goal is achieved with the state or not, it might use it, like with radical Yangist Neoteric Marxist thought, hijacking the state in order to accelerate the upwards stream, or with Cyber Neoteric Marxism, using highly decentralized means to swell the ranks of the bourgeoisie.

In the end, it simply wants one thing, and that one thing, is freedom for all.

Cyber-NeoMarxism as a tool

Not so long ago, a lovely fellow wrote about Cyber-NeoMarxism, a new branch of NeoMarxism that focuses on Proto-Omniclasses on the cyberspace, and I had to wonder, where does this fit in my theory of NeoMarxism? Can Cyber-NeoMarxism be used as a tool to gentrify reality faster?

Well first of all the cyber variant of NeoMarxism brings to light the concept of Proto-Omniclass, an omniclass that only exists in the cyberspace. As Andreas, the author of the article says, the cyberspace is already being gentrified, a universal cyber-bourgeoisie is already being created, and it is only a matter of time before we can reach cyber-implosion.

But cyber-implosion isn't enough, to truly be freed from the chains of capitalism, we must gentrify reality. Thankfully Cyber-NeoMarxism is not useless in this process, as the CNM process can easily be integrated into the NeoMarxist process in order to aid gentrification, as once we achieve cyber-implosion, we can branch off and use the newly acquired cyber means of production to acquire physical means of production and fully gentrify reality.

Of course I highly recommend you read the original article by Andreas, as my article does not cover all the facets of Cyber-NeoMarxism

The death of Paleo-Marxism

For centuries the foundation of communist thought has been Paleo-marxism, the ideologies that have been birthed from the writings of Marx up until the creation of Neo-Marxism, but it is now clear that Paleo-Marxism is built onto flawed foundations and is now outdated.

Paleo-Marxism was made with the assumption that the bourgeoisie is the dominant class, which has been disproven, as society is actually dominated by the proletarian class. The whole worldview of paleo-marxism then collapses in this instant, it is simply put, obsolete.

It is time for paleo-marxists of the world to realize that their world view is flawed, that revolution and insurrection are outdated and embrace Neo-Marxism. They need to accept that the only way to achieve communism, is to gentrify reality and to implode society.

The true class struggle begins today, while the ideas of old will be phased out.

Omniclasses

Omniclasses are an interesting concept that has been brought up while developing reality gentrification theory, because once you achieve gentrification, everyone is part of the bourgeoisie, but if everyone is part of the bourgeoisie, then isn't it safe to assume that no one is part of the bourgeoisie? Since the bourgeois no longer have a class to exploit, they would become a synthesis class, an omniclass if you will, the bourgeois proletariat, which could only exist once every single individual owns means of production.

That omniclass can't be sustained for very long though, as it still has characteristics of the bourgeoisie and needs a lower class to sustain itself, resulting in the famed “Societal Implosion” where the capitalist and class system collapse onto themselves and evolve into communism.

Revolution or Implosion?

For so long we have asked this question “Reform or Revolution”, but I think it is time we move on from those paleodebates and move on to the true materialistic debate that needs to be had: Revolution or Implosion?

Revolution has shown itself to be a systematic failure, constantly propping up metafascist states such as the Soviet Union, the United States, France and so many more. The problem with revolution is that it does not attempt to change the framework of society but attempts to change it's contents, meaning it can never make true meaningful change.

Societal implosion fixes that problem, societal implosion accelerates the current societal framework (in this case class conflict) and makes it implode into a new framework (meta-marxism). In order to achieve Neo-Marxist societal implosion, you “simply” need to gentrify reality, which is explained in my other article “Reality gentrification and Post-Proletariat”. Once everyone is bourgeois, there is simply no one to exploit anymore, and capitalism implodes on itself and class vanishes, creating a meta-marxist utopia.

The choice here is clear, societal implosion should be the means of societal change preferred by Neo-Marxists.

The Archy of the proletariat

The proletariat has acted as the “victim class” for now way too long, it is time to admit the truth: We do not live in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, but in a dictatorship of the proletariat.

The bourgeoisie does not coerce the proletariat into selling their labor, no, the proletariat forces the bourgeois to sell their means of productions, it is a simple fact, the workers could create their own means of production, while the bourgeoisie is dependent on the proletarian class to produce and live, and as such, we live in a proletarian dominated society, where proletarians rule the state and control it via lower positions.

It is undeniable that the bourgeoisie controls a big share of the power in society, but the real monarch in here is not the bourgeois, but the worker.

Reality Gentrification and Post-Proletariat

For centuries Paleomarxism was made to be about the emancipation of the proletariat, but what if Marx was wrong? What if the class that needed emancipation was the bourgeoisie? Neo-Marxism adresses that.

The bourgeoisie for so long has been oppressed as a minority class, and, the only way to achieve true communism (Meta-Marxism) is to abolish the proletariat, and gentrify reality. But how does one gentrify reality one might ask? Well it is quite simple, first of all, the bourgeois must stop selling their means of production to the proletariat, once this is achieved, we can enter into the first phase of gentrification: Reducing the proletariat.

One Reduces the proletariat by giving access to means of production to every single individual, if everyone has access to them, everyone becomes bourgeois, and as such the classes are commodified and we enter the second phase of gentrification: Societal-Implosion

Since everyone is now the bourgeoisie, there is no longer anyone to exploit and as such, society implodes into higher phase meta-marxism, achieving an accelerated Utopia and synthesizing the proletariat and the bourgeoisie into the bourgeois proletariat.