Thinking Communism
The second month at The Portal is dedicated to rethinking communism
Whenever I mention the word “communism” I can see most people’s literal nervous system reaction is to tense up and cringe.
“Communism failed.”
“What’s wrong with liberal capitalism.”
I agree. And a lot.
When I told my friend and collaborator David McKerracher of
that I would hosting The Portal’s live event space on the “idea of communism”, he said to me that (while he is down to join in) he at the same time hates to have his name associated with that word.Fair enough.
I responded that I want to use The Portal to do monthly analysis of concepts that have these weird (positive/negative) powers of association.
Dave thought it was genius, and if Dave thinks its genius, it must be!
However, and at the same time, what is the starting point? Perhaps we could here follow the direction that
has pointed towards in his fantastic series on “terrible communities”:All communities are terrible communities
Common results of terrible communities are (1) tyranny of structurelessness, (2) cult states, (3) intimacy without friendships
The only antidote is “power literacy” and strategies to deal with people who are extremely skilled at manipulating social fields and are at the same time bent towards using community for self-serving motives
People who fit this description “live a lie” and can either become “sneaky fuckers”, “unconscious gaslighters”, and “conversational narcissists”
The final solution is to see community as not only a “perpetual state of construction” but also and most importantly “perpetually moving towards disappearance”
The only disagreement I have with this conclusion is, perhaps, the idea that we must mobilise the activity of disappearance for its positive function, i.e. can the active movement towards fundamental disappearance of the communal thing be the very (negative) source of a new positivity?
In the upcoming Philosophy Portal anthology inspired by Hegel’s Science of Logic, I apply this basic logic (which is equal to something like the negation of the negation), towards Philosophy Portal itself in the following two questions:
Is Philosophy Portal birthing philosophical cognition?
Is Philosophy Portal capable of overcoming/dissolving itself?
The first question is how I try to guarantee avoiding becoming a “terrible community” (as defined above) by focusing my attention on, not only the purpose, but the purpose for the other. But in that context, is Philosophy Portal a community? Yes and no.
First off, I strongly agree with Limberg that:
The term community is lazily used, overused, and abused. Anytime people interact regularly online, a community magically seems to appear...
If you have regular Zoom events, *poof* a community!
If you have a Discord or Slack group, *poof* a community!
If you enable comments on a Substack, *poof* a community!
Fuck that noise.
The ambiguity around the idea of community, as opposed to the unambiguous idolatry of community, is important here, because indeed:
All communities are terrible
I must constantly (dialectically) balance (the tyranny of) structurelessness and the (constant threat) of a cult state, as well as intimacy without friendships
I must constantly stay in self-critique (self-relating negativity) about my own capacity to distort social fields as well as the powers of those closest to me (friends and enemies alike) to do the same
I must constantly stay in touch with the truth of my drive (be able to look myself in the mirror/live with myself, transparent to those closest to me, and those who have made Philosophy Portal what it is etc.), and simultaneously in that process eliminate the need to “sneak around”, “gaslight friends”, or “over-dominate conversations”
Constantly construct while constantly disappearing at the same time
It’s not only not easy, it is maddening.
I am actually in quite an insane state this morning. Fair enough.1
Well then! Might as well write an article inspired by it.
In regards to the first question: I do think that Philosophy Portal is genuinely (playing its part in a larger ecology) and giving birth to philosophical cognition. I see this concretely in those individuals who have dedicated their timenergy to Philosophy Portal in its first two years of existence.2 I have seen many young men in particular go from having no knowledge of philosophy to being philosophical power houses with the capacity to make me question my own knowledge. Moreover I am constantly exposed to and surrounded by younger great emerging thinkers that don’t give a shit about what I have written and are busy constructing their own way of thinking.
Great!
In regards to the second question: is Philosophy Portal capable of overcoming/dissolving itself?
What I want to emphasise here is the unity of construction and disappearance. I do not want to emphasise that this “goes beyond” what Limberg is emphasising with a perpetual movement towards disappearance, but what I want to emphasise that there may be (very practical) consequences for viewing construction and disappearance in a closer unity. One thing is that if we view construction and disappearance as separate, or even connected but with an emphasis and an accent towards disappearance over construction — as opposed to seeing both an emphasis from construction to disappearance and disappearance to construction — we miss the most important reflexive dimension of the dialectic of creativity.3
The problem with embodying this position is that it (seems to) require befriending madness.4
Let me start my argument by arguing that this is the only way I could really navigate the only community (I currently) would ever trust: the community that is the monogamy of my partner and I. Wikipedia tells me that I can use the term in this way:
“A community is a social unity (a group of living things) with a shared socially significant characteristic, such as a place, set of norms, culture, religion, values, customs, or identity.”
My partner and I certainly classify:
We are a social unity (a group of living things)
We share an apartment (place)
We share normative routines (norms)
We have a culture (it is called the “Cadrey Latin” culture)
We have a religion (we are both secular atheists5 with a respect for cultural and civilisational Christianity, as well as respect for the function of formal religion in general)
We have a shared value-system (we both like to have pizza and wine nights, for example, and strongly dislike fundamentalist ideologues)
Hooray, we are now a community! And moreover, the “community” that is a “monogamous partnership” can fall into all the problems identified above:
All monogamous partnerships are terrible6
All monogamous partnerships can fall into the tyranny of structurelessness, or fall into a cult state, or become an intimacy without friendship
Must navigate power literacy dynamics with one or both partners distorting the social field
Become the foundation for “living a lie” either through one or both partners becoming “sneaky fuckers”, “unconscious gaslighters”, or “conversational narcissists”
And so forth and so on.7 It applies quite well.
In any case, I have to view the community of my partner and I under a model of both constructing towards disappearance and disappearing towards construction. If I only viewed it as construction towards disappearance I would probably already be headed to the monastery for an isolated life of reflective contemplation, fasting, and meditation — away from the madness of men, woman and children — like all spiritual human seekers that do not realise the logic required for becoming (or make enough money to exist in this world while establishing and controlling their rational boundaries in relation to it).8
The thing is if you are to affirm the movement of construction towards disappearance (of a certain identity of the community, in my case: the identity of my partner and I), while at the same time affirming the movement of disappearance towards construction, you have to be able to hold a little (or a lot of madness). Most, or I might even say all, monogamous partnerships that have weathered the storm of a life-long bond have had to navigate both dynamics, whether consciously or unconsciously. I suspect that most do it unconsciously and by whatever luck, or grace of a lack of a reflection, do fine. However, I also suspect that most that do it unconsciously end up together simply out of fear or laziness.
Better to make your essence reflexive, I say.9
Practically speaking, doing both construction-disappearance in a long-term relationship (qua community), involves recognising certain important and constructive processes coming to an end (disappearing), while at the same time holding the space of that disappearance and seeing in it a type of “pregnant void”, a “void of potentials”.10
Moreover, if you hold that space as a unity you see it is all connected, but only after the fact. While you are actually going through the process of construction-disappearance and disappearance-construction (and here there seems to be no helpful workaround), it fundamentally feels like an end and a death.11
“It’s all connected, man.”
Yes, precisely (as long as you recognise that it is “all connected” only after the fact). We are the type of beings that can construct and disappear, disappear and construct. It’s all very (Hegelian) zen.12
Ok, moving on, and back to the question: is Philosophy Portal capable of overcoming/dissolving itself?
I actually do feel that Philosophy Portal embodies certain dynamics it that I would consider communal, if only in seed form. But to really become a community, I think it (and by extension: myself) would probably have to die more thoroughly (and repeatedly until the end end). Yes, thorough and painful death(s). I have a great future ahead of myself!
In all (playful) seriousness, there have been private moments where I have thought something like: just kill this thing, just end this thing. At the same time, as we all know, suicide is all too positive: it is the easy way out. What is really difficult to do is not only “kill/end” a thing, but to “kill/end” a thing while at the same time raising it to a higher level. So far I have been able to do that while keeping the name Philosophy Portal.
But wait, that is not true.
What I have noticed in my own discourse over the first two months of this year’s big initiative — the fancy “live event space”13 — is that I have tended towards calling it “The Portal”.
I like it.
Basically I am increasingly wanting to drop the “Philosophy” from “Philosophy Portal” and just call it “The Portal”. Because, it is true, it is a “portal into the world of philosophy”. But it is not exhausted by that category. It can also be a portal into the world of magic (or “Xagick”)14 it can also be a portal into the world of psychotherapy or psychoanalysis,15 it can also be a portal into the world of communism.16
So “The Portal” sounds more freeing.
What it allows me to do is also gradually move away from some things that were “killing me” (like generally unhelpful people who unconsciously like what I am doing but only interact with what I am doing by way of trying to tear it down via critiquing or insulting my style or influence on “philosophy” and ultimately only because they are not capable of “building a thing”).
Cool.17
So we can think like this:
The first two years of Philosophy Portal was a construction heading towards its own disappearance (in this construction many cool things were achieved: students learned things, friendships formed, books were published, courses were taught, retreats were hosted, and so forth)
The gradual tendency to disappearance then opens the space for another construction, The Portal, which forms a new style of event space that can create a totally new learning dynamic untethered from conventional course work but still dedicated to deep thinking and so forth
However and again: if Philosophy Portal/The Portal were to really become a community, then not only would there have to be another name change, but it could be that the whole logic of what I am doing now would have to die (and my current identity along with it).
What would that look like? Nobody can know, and certainly not I. While it may all be connected after the fact, while I am going through the thing, I cannot know. That is why I made Philosophy Portal’s logo that pesky angry owl image.
What does all this have to do with “communism”.
Well, a lot probably. While the word communism invokes a lot of negative emotion, there are at the same time many ideologues today that are using the word or similar notions as social weapons.
Now that makes me tense up and cringe.
“Communism failed.”
“What’s wrong with liberal capitalism.”
I agree. And a lot.
Let us say that, in the 20th century: “communism was created and (against its will) disappeared”. However, and following the logic of Žižek’s “Return to Hegel” (from Marx), we must be willing to think communism again in the very space of its disappearance. We need to think a new communism and if we do not then ideologues will fill that vacuum, along with all of the very real problems that Limberg has identified so well for us.
Perhaps that is why David McKerracher of
wants to host a “Council of Nicaea” — not to repeat the 3rd century attempt to get a consensus in the church about the whole of Christendom — but to think through the idea of community after the whole of Christian and modern secular history as a sublation of it all.18 One of the big mistakes that ideologues are making in the disappearance of modern communism is a return to Christian roots while negating modern history.That is just stupidity.
In any case, this month at The Portal we will be trying to think through the concept of communism. The month as a whole will be structured in the following way:
Concept Cave — Communism
Dr. Cadell Last (that’s me!) lectures on the concept of communism from a philosophical perspective that hopes to bring questions of theopolitics and political-economy into closer dialogue
The Edge — Hyperhumanism
Dr. Carl Hayden Smith will be exploring the edge of a concept that can help us think the deadlocks of humanism, transhumanism and post-humanism, and how we can become “more human” in the age of artificial intelligence
Thought Lab — Timenergy
David McKerracher of
will be teaching us about the concept of Timenergy, inspired by his book Timenergy: Why You Have No Time or Energy (2023).
Real Talk — Status Anxiety
- will be holding space for a free association around the concept of status anxiety and the way it shapes our online discursive spaces, as well as both rupturing and determining our identity .
Members of The Portal not only get access to this live event space, but also get access to:
the recorded history of The Portal,
access to office hours,
community publications,
discounts on recorded courses,
permanent early bird pricing on future courses, and
priority access for retreats.
Couples are encouraged and get a 2 for 1 deal.
Lacan tells me it is my truth: “You will see that the question of truth conditions the phenomenon of madness in its very essence, and that by trying to avoid this question, one castrates this phenomenon of the signification by virtue of which I can show you that it is tied to man’s very being.”, see: Lacan, J. 2005. Presentation on Psychical Causality. In: Écrits: The First Complete Edition in English. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. p. 125.
Shut the fuck up Cadell. For more, see my (currently unpublished) article in Logic for the Global Brain, “Concept to Being” when it is eventually published.
Read the Ecrits! Or take the course!
Or more properly: fallen sinful creatures living a hedonistic individualistic lifestyle eternally separated from God and doomed to hell.
* Sniff sniff *
See: Hegel’s Science of Logic.
Don’t listen to me.
Like the quantum foam where virtual particles are constantly created and destroyed. Jesus Christ, you are still reading this?
Like Limberg’s “Death of The Stoa” parties leading to “Less Foolish” (or something like that).
And no, Zen Buddhists do not have a concept like sublation that may help in the political-economy of intimate relations.
The first month was actually fun and a good success.
As it will be this month, check it out.
Is that how you “throw shade”?
This points much more towards
of ’s project of a “Christianity beyond itself”.
Love the new conversational style! You struck a perfect balance between expressiveness and substance.
You say it's great that younger guys don't care about what you've written. I would argue it's the main reason we have a hard time going from scene to milieu! People prefer a few videos and then feel they know enough. I, for one, have only really gotten going with your work, and it's just the beginning!