💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › various-authors-articles-from-machete-4.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:30:48. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Articles from “Machete” #4
Author: Various Authors
Date: 2009
Language: en
Topics: anti-civ, anti-work, post-left, satire
Source: Personal communication with the translator

Various Authors

Articles from “Machete” #4

The Actor and the King

It seldom happens.

Fortunately.

Yet once it did occur that an actor chose a king to be his friend.

Or perhaps it was the other way round.

But in the end it makes no difference.

The two of them were honest and sincere friends. They quarreled and were

reconciled, as is generally the custom between true friends.

For two years their friendship held.

The actor made no more ado about this friendship than he would have done

about a friendship with any other mortal.

One afternoon they went strolling together in the park.

The actor had played a king the evening before. But not a Shakespearean

king. The royal patron of the theater could not endure those. For

Shakespeare’s kings, not withstanding their divine right, were quite

ordinary men who loved and hated, murdered and reigned — just as it

suited their intents and purposes.

The part of the king in the play of the previous evening, however, had

been written by an author who was an anarchist at the age of eighteen,

though later he was appointed a privy councilor.

It is understandable that this part should have delighted the king

enormously and gave him occasion to converse with the actor on the

problem of representing kings on the stage.

“What is the sensation you encounter, dear friend, when you appear in

the role of king?”

“I feel myself to be totally a king, with the result that I would be

incapable of any gesture which does not suit the character of a king.”

“That I can understand very well. The crowd of extras, bowing before you

as the stage directions instruct them to do, sustains your sense of

majestic dignity and suggests to the audience that you are indeed a

king.”

“Even without the supporting actors I remain a king in the eyes of the

audience — even if it happens that I must be quite alone on stage and

deliver a monologue!”

This magnificently artistic conception of the actor’s stimulated the

king to draw a strictly circumscribed comparison between himself and the

thespian king.

“But nonetheless, there remains an unbridgeable abyss between a real

king and a thespian king. However remarkable your performance as a king,

you cease to be a king as soon as the curtain descends. Suggestibility

and dramatic illusion put an end to your majesty as soon as they cease

to operate. Whereas I, my dear fellow, I remain a king even when I lie

in my bed!”

To this the actor rejoined, “My dear friend, your comparison applies to

both of us. No more than a short while ago we drove in a carriage to the

gates of this park. Countless people lined the streets and ran behind

us. They waved — you returned their greeting. They shouted as loud as

they had breath, ‘Long live the king!’ and “Hurrah!” — you smiled.

Rather smugly. But if these people should ever cease to play their parts

as unpaid extras, then you also — and not only in your bed, but also in

the clear light of day — you also, my friend, will cease to be a real

king!”

The king halted abruptly in his tracks.

He stared fixedly at the actor.

His lips grew pale and began to quiver.

Suddenly he turned on his heel. Briskly he walked to the carriage and

rode home.

Alone.

The friendship was at an end.

The friends never saw one another again.

And never again did the king attend the theater.

He became a thinker.

Became obsessed by the notion that he was a quite ordinary mortal.

Consequently he had to abdicate.

Died five years later.

His mind deranged.

It was said.

[Ret Marut]

Destroying Civilization, Destroying Nature. Theses toward

decivilizing and becoming dangerous

1

One of the most harmful prevailing prejudices of our times is the belief

in Nature as a unified being separate from, and even opposed to Humanity

(also perceived as a unified being). In the context of this doctrine,

what is specifically Human — what is created by conscious human activity

— is called Artificial as opposed to Natural.

2

The concept of Nature (that is the concept that all beings, things,

relationships and activities not created by human beings constitute a

unified whole that stands in contrast to all the things, beings,

relationships and activities consciously created by human beings) is

itself a product of conscious human activity and, thus, artificial.

3

Etymologically, “nature” simply refers to what is born into something,

what is inherent to it; “artifice” refers to something that is made

through consciously applied skill. Considered in this way, there is no

necessary (“natural” if you will) opposition between “nature” and

“artifice”, since what is consciously and skillfully created can only be

made by natural beings (at least as of now) with an inborn capacity to

learn to act consciously and with skill.

This does not mean that all or even most “artificial” creations are

desirable. Just as there are certain “natural” realities that may cause

us harm, so there are many “artificial” realities that are detrimental

to us. Furthermore, while “natural” harms are usually temporary events

that we can endure and get beyond, artificial creations that cause us

harm are often meant to be permanent and even expansive. Thus, the only

way to put an end to their harmfulness is to dismantle or destroy them.

For example, institutions, large-scale structures and technological

systems are all created through conscious human activity. They form a

network that defines and limits the possibilities of our lives. They

harm us socially and psychologically through these limitations that

cripple imagination and creative capacity. They harm us physically by

causing or enhancing disasters, illness, poverty, pollution, etc.

Getting beyond them requires not endurance, but rather conscious human

activity aimed at destruction...

In addition, there are aspects of the reality in which we live that are

neither “natural” or “artificial”, neither inborn nor consciously

created, I am speaking here of the vast array of historical, social and

cultural contingencies that develop out of the continuous, fluid

interweaving of human relations amongst themselves and with non-human

beings and things. Though they develop from human activity, they are not

conscious creations, but rather reflect the meeting of chance and

necessity in living in the world. For this reason, they often reflect

the absurdity of the attempt to institutionally rationalize the world.

But they also often provide the opportunities for challenging this

institutional rationalization. Thus, in order to attack the civilized

ruling order, we need to see beyond the “natural”-“artificial” dichotomy

and explore this realm of historical, social and cultural contingency in

order to grasp what we can as weapons for our revolt.

4

The conception of Nature as a unified entity is the basis for two

apparently contradictory, but in fact complementary, ideologies that

serve the ruling order by enforcing control over our lives: the moral

ideology that ascribes goodness to the Natural and evil to the Unnatural

and the metaphysical ideology of inherent alienation that sees Nature as

a force hostile to Humanity and its development, a force that must be

conquered and brought under control.

The moral ideology is applied most widely to in the sexual realm, but

has also been used against magical and alchemical experimentation as

well as any activity that is looked upon as a challenge to god’s rule

(hubris). In our times, it is used against a variety of sexual acts as

well as against abortion. Sexual minorities interested in assimilating

often try to prove the naturalness of their sexuality (for example, by

claiming it is genetic) as opposed to the unnaturalness of certain other

forms of sexuality (pedophilia, whose definition has been expanded in

recently years to mean the sexual attraction of an adult for anyone

under the legal age of consent[1], and to a lesser extent bestiality are

the prime contemporary examples of “unnatural” desire). But whether used

against the hubris of alleged sorcerers, alchemists or courageous

infidels, or against specific sexual or reproductive acts, this moral

Nature serves as a tool for keeping passion and desire in check and thus

for keeping us under control.

The ideology that views Nature as a hostile force which Humanity must

conquer in order to meet its needs occurs to some extent within all

civilizations, but only seems to have become the dominant conception

within western civilization in the past five or six hundred years. Its

rise to dominance, in fact corresponds with the rise of capitalism and

the beginnings of industrialism. It was necessary to begin to channel

human creative endeavors into activity that would maximally exploit all

potential economic resources — natural and human — and this ideology

provided a justification for just such an exploitative development. It

makes use of disease, storms, floods, droughts, earthquakes and other

so-called natural difficulties and catastrophes to back up this

perspective and justify the most intrusive and controlling technological

interventions. More than the moral ideology, this perspective is the

modern justification for domination and control.

5

Civilization is a network of institutions that materially and

practically alienate us from our own lives and creativity and, at the

same time, from the myriad of relationships with the infinite variety of

beings and things that make up the world in which we live. This

alienation is what transforms the variety of beings and things into the

unity of Nature. This unity mirrors the imposed unity of civilization.

6

Overcoming alienation could thus be seen as a process of decivilizing.

But what does this mean? It does not mean rewilding, going back to the

primitive, going back to Nature. All these ideas imply a return to a way

of being that is in reality a conceptual model (the Wild, the Primitive,

the Natural) and thus a civilized ideal. Decivilizing is not a return to

anything. The flow of relationships between ever-changing individuals

that is existence outside of the Civilization-Nature dichotomy is never

repeatable. So decivilizing has to be understood and explored without

models, without any concept of a return.

7

A process of decivilizing would instead be a process of destruction and

dismantling. Of material and social institutions and structures, of

course. But also of the ideological structures, the false conceptual

unities (Stirner’s “spooks”) which channel thinking to such an extent

that most of us don’t even notice these chains on our thoughts. The

oneness of Nature, the oneness of Life, the oneness of the Earth are all

civilized ideological constructions that guarantee that we continue to

view our relationship with the rest of the world through the lens of

alienation.

8

In this light, the desire to attack and destroy the institutions,

structures and people that enforce the rule of the civilized regime

becomes meaningful only when we are experimenting with ways of grasping

our lives as our own and encountering other beings as individuals

striving to create their lives — i.e., when we are practically attacking

the ideological structure that channel our thoughts and desires. This

does not mean rejecting all categorization, but rather recognizing its

limits as a specific tool. Categorization can, for example, help us to

distinguish poisonous from edible plants. But it cannot tell us the

reality or even the most significant aspects of another being: their

desires, their aspirations, their dreams...

9

By recognizing and encountering the uniqueness of each being in each

moment, we find the basis for determining how to carry out our desires,

for recognizing where complicity and mutuality are appropriate, where

conflict is inevitable or desirable, where passionate encounter might

flare up and where indifference makes sense. Thus, we are able to focus

on what we need to realize desire, what place other beings and things

and the relationships we build with them have in this creative process.

10

In terms of attacking civilization, this means rejecting any monolithic

conception of it, without losing sight of its nature as an intertwining

network of interdependent institutions and structures. These

institutions and fundamental structures can only exist through the

alienation of individuals from their lives. That alienation is their

basis. This is why we can never make these institutions and basic

structures our own, and there is no use in trying to grasp them as such.

Rather they need to be destroyed, removed from our path.

But the development of civilization has created a great many byproducts

of all sorts: materials, tools, buildings, gathering spaces, ideas,

skills, etc. If we view civilization simplistically, as a solid

monolith, then we can only bemoan our need to continue to use some of

these byproducts as we dream of a distant future when we will live in a

paradise where every trace of this monolith is gone.

If, on the other hand, we can distinguish what is essential to

civilization from its byproducts and encounter the latter immediately in

terms of our needs and desires (i.e., in a decivilized manner), new

possibilities open for exploring how to live on our own terms.

11

This is how outlaws, the so-called “dangerous classes”, tend to

encounter the world. Everything that isn’t nailed down is there for the

taking to create life with. As anarchists who recognize civilization as

the institutionalization of relationships of domination and

exploitation, we would also encounter these byproducts in terms of how

they can be used to attack, destroy and dismantle civilization.

12

But how does the idea of relating to each individual being in its

uniqueness affect the human need to consciously and skillfully create?

If we conceive of the ever-changing myriads of relationships around us

as a monolithic Nature that is basically hostile toward us, the

techniques methods and structures we develop will aim to conquer,

control and dominate this hostile force (perhaps even to destroy it).

If, instead, we see ourselves and all the beings around us as unique

individuals in an ever-changing interaction with each other, we would

still use skill and artifice, but not to conquer a monolith. Instead, we

would use them to weave our way through a wonderful dance of

relationships — destroying the calcifying institutions that block this

dance — in a way that brings the greatest enjoyment to our lives.

13

A practice of this sort requires a vital and active imagination and a

resolute playfulness.

By imagination, I mean the capacity to “see beyond” what is, to see

possibilities that challenge and attack the current reality rather than

extending it. I am not talking here of an adherence to a single utopian

vision — which would tend to create authoritarian monstrosities in

search of adherents to devour — but of a capacity for ongoing utopian

exploration without a destination, without a goal.

Perhaps this is what distinguishes anarchists from other outlaws.

Imagination has moved their conception of the enjoyment of life beyond

mere consumption to playful creation. Certainly, the ways in which

outlaws have often historically consumed — the squandering of all they

gained through their wits and daring in excesses of debauched feasting

and immediate enjoyment of luxuries — runs counter to the capitalist

value of accumulation, but it still equates wealth with things,

reflecting the alienation of current relationships. Active, practical

imagination can show us the real wealth that can spring from free

relationships as creative activity.

By resolute playfulness, I mean the refusal to compromise oneself by

taking on an identity that pins one down, the refusal to take seriously

precisely those things to which this society gives importance, the

insistence upon experimenting with one’s life in each moment without

worrying about a future that does not exist. The world is full of toys,

games and challenges that can heighten the intensity of living. They are

often hidden, buried beneath the institutional seriousness or the

necessities of survival imposed by the ruling order. The insurgent and

outlaw grasping of life involves breaking through these barriers.

14

So, a process of decivilization, of freeing ourselves from the

constraints and obligations imposed by the network of institutions that

we call civilization, is not a return to anything. It does not center

around learning certain skills and techniques or applying certain

utilitarian measures. It is rather a matter of refusing the domination

of the utilitarian, the domination of survival over life, of insisting

upon going out into the world to play on our own terms, taking hold of

what gives us pleasure, and destroying what stands in our way.

Against Unemployment and Temp Work: Continual and Equal Exploitation

for All!

We want to work. Yes, we want to work at all costs. Not so much for the

money in itself as for our social prestige, for confidence in ourselves

and in the future. And, most of all, for our freedom; so many great

thinkers have assured us that work makes us free!

For too long we’ve been excluded from this freedom and left to

ourselves, and this has generated anti-social habits in us. Instead of

getting up at dawn to go to the factory or office, we’ve had breakfast

in bed, basked and then gone back to sleep. Instead of risking death by

getting crushed by machinery or from boredom, we’ve roamed the streets

in search of adventure. While industrialists and politicians have to

deal with a financial crisis of huge proportions, while conforming

citizens — or, more briefly, citizens — trudge stressfully along, we

have all the time in the world available to us to daydream, wander,

read, make love. We’ve had it! And this is why we want to go where

government leaders, from whom we expect everything, meet. Because

unemployment should be suppressed, and everyone should be able to earn

their bread by the sweat of their brow.

In order to achieve full employment for all, we propose:

The leveling of the useless mountains and hills with shovels and

pickaxes; the transport of the rocks, on the backs of men and women on

foot, to the industrial deserts, where they will be used to erect huge

pyramids glorifying CEOs, the president of the World Bank and other

Pharaohs of the Sacred Market. The pyramids will attract global tourism,

which is bound to create supplementary jobs for servants.

With the aim of defeating foreign competition, we demand the

establishment of a maximum wage that should be no higher than the

average wage in the poorest countries. In this way, our employers will

be willing to continue exploiting their fellow countrymen and women

rather than transferring most of their activity to other countries in

search of more responsive labor.

The hiring of all the unemployed who are compatible with information

technologies in virtual enterprises to produce virtual services paid

with virtual money.

The immediate privatization of air. Why? First of all, because it is

counterproductive and sets the worst possible example that there is

still something available for free one this planet. Also because it is

immoral for idlers and good-for-nothings to appropriate the same right

to breath as scrupulous workers. But, above all, because this measure

will provide the final solution to the problem of unemployment. On the

one hand, it would give birth to new jobs: lung capacity measurers,

oxygen tariff collectors, respiration controllers. On the other hand,

all the shirkers could no long treat themselves to respiration and would

finally vanish from our lives. It remains to be seen whether global

conventions will allow the creation of still more workplaces for

transforming the suppressed unemployed into bars of soap, lampshades and