Theorypunk (Based)
This is a concept explored by Nyx that i will summarize and give my own takes on here and there. Essentially, it is an attempt at breaking the boundaries found in political theory. In academic spaces, once you reach that point, you'd find that most of the political theory you'd be writing is for other academics who really only like specific viewpoints and a specific method. It's essentially an intellectual circle jerk in the end, at best being marxist ideologically and at worst being liberals. In other words the viewpoint is rather narrow and doesn't value much experimentation, which is precisely why the ccru fled academic spaces. These spaces reject anything truly radical. Not to mention how the theory is presented. There's a reason why post leftist or even just regular leftist politics don't reach as many people and it's how damn academic many of the works are. It just alienates outsiders rather than trying to entice them. Theorypunk aims to sort of decentralize political theory and generate new ideas
For starters, we can utilize new things like youtube, blogs, posts, podcasts, even memes as the new form of communicating ideas, which so far has worked pretty well. It's not much different than the use of zines in terms of the purpose, that anyone can do it and it isn't put through a string of editors deciding what does and what doesn't get put out there, creating vast potential. Plus they'd be free to essentially everyone out there rather than gatekept to a few people. It's supposed to allow amateur theorists and propagandists to shine and generate new ideas at a faster and more accessible scale than before. The fact is as of now the left just worships academia and much of them, even anarchists, tend to be stuck in the 19th and 20th century. It's no wonder why the alt right has spread so quickly, they've adapted before we did, and now it is time for the left to adapt once more
Theory should be treated more as an art form than anything. It should transcend the original author and become an egregore that others can continue to build upon. It should inspire others to be active participants, and like theory shouldn't be subject to ownership from a singular person. It isn't a singular person or group of people going "i alone have found the truth", that is, for lack of a better word, fascistic in nature. It's the death of the author essentially. Essentially it's a lot like making a remix of a pre-existing song or having parts of it sampled until it becomes a completely different song. Ownership of an idea is a ridiculous concept, you can't own an idea. Shit, nobody really truly "owns" anything, tf you think this is? Lmao
In conclusion, the decentralization and evolution of how we both consume and create (emphasis on the latter) theory is a key aspect to unlocking these ideas to the masses, in an unfiltered deluge of unique thought and propaganda in unique aesthetics, media, etc. I'm sure you remember that brief moment where i was more influenced by maoism than i was before due to me looking more into the truth about what china is like and seeing that it's way different from western narratives. While i respect what it has accomplished and might even go there in the future, i now maintain a more critical stance of it and don't glaze it like i once did, much to many of you guy's relief. If you don't remember this, idk what to tell you, lurk moar ig. But anyway, the reason i bring this up is a half confession: while my beliefs genuinely did evolve to an extent at the time, my discussing it in the sub was an experiment. I wanted to see if a single person can change the trajectory of a philosophical movement, space, or thought. And what i found was it has not, if anything it only strengthened the amount of anarchist thought that was in the sub originally. This proves one thing: once a movement begins to evolve there is no going back, and the original creator of whatever space that may be has very little say in the direction it goes in the end. This is good. A theory and philosophy must be routinely updated and continued to be built upon until it becomes a lovecraftian force operating beyond the understanding or comprehension of any who was originally there to witness it. This is why marxists, or any traditional leftist for that matter, tend to get on my nerves slightly, they might call any deviation from the original thought "revisionism", which is essentially leftist for "heresy". As i said before, atheists are just as dogmatic as evangelicals often times. You can't just fall back on old ideas or old movements, that's just stupid. It's reactionary by nature, no other way of looking at it, and idolizing the past leads to stagnation. Obviously you can appreciate the past and even be inspired by it, but it is not our goal. You have to look towards what the future will be. Ironically, all you have to do is look at modern trends and the history of youth culture, the arts (music, tv, film, fashion, aesthetics, etc), politics, generational trends, philosophy, etc. This will give you a pretty solid approximation of the future. You have to take in all the information you can find and interpret it, not parrot it. Stealing water from the cathedral
Thank you for coming to my ted talk lol. Stay noided