On the problem of self-placement

I hate responsibility and I always come to despise people who expect things of me.

Antal Szerb Journey by Moonlight

The one called communist ostentatiously manifests itself in the place previously held by the one called anarchist. Its manner of appearance indicates its preference for the register of maturation. The one called communist appears in the world by means of its strenuous assertion to the effect that it no longer ascribes transformative events to human will. Instead, it has found, for both its committed and omitted involvements, an alibi in the transformative power of world making forces. Above all, the one called communist claims to have left behind the one called anarchist’s morality. And it is true that that the one called anarchist makes the category type error of seeking to realise an identity between itself and something called Law, which operates at a remote distance from all activities, in the one called anarchist’s specifically designated anarchistic behaviours. But it is not true that this alleged error is the real basis for the distinction between the communist and anarchist emplacements. The apparent separation between the two cannot be properly attributed to the increasing theoretical sophistication of the one called communist for the reason that its set of avowals (concerning separation from ideology set alongside an authentic approach to real process) remain purely self-correlative. Whilst the one called communist identifies with the forces of social transformation, the forces of social transformation are destined never to correlate to, nor converge with, the one called communist. So it appears that at the level of distance from something called Law, the one called communist remains, essentially, in the same place as the one called anarchist. Even so, a true separation between the two placements does occur at the level of object - the one called communist has relinquished that awareness which is constituted in the contradiction of realising something called Law in and by anarchistic activity. By contrast, the one called anarchist continues to sustain this consciousness eternally, and precisely in terms of a living contradiction. Instead of the active, if paradoxical, relation to something called Law, the one called communist inserts an unrequited commitment to real process – between itself and its own radical root, the one called communist places a shield of abstraction. From behind its shield of maturation, the one called communist perceives the one called anarchist as a failed communist. It does not consider that they do not share the same object. Even so, it seems that in making its assertion, the one called communist really does separate itself from the one called anarchist’s intuitive presentation of something called justice, although not on its own terms. Ironically, the separation itself is effected within the typically anarchistic domain of the assertive act of self-differentiation, rather than through the assertion’s actual content (in this example, a supposed theoretical maturation in relation to a more perfectly understood objective process) which is little more than a reaction formation. This indicates that the one called communist is morbidly preoccupied with the apparent distance between its niche and the niche it seeks to allocate to the one called anarchist (the niche of infantile gesture and theoretical non-elaboration before 'world making forces'). If the one called anarchist's object is something called Law, which it attempts to realise as 'revolt', then the one called communist's object is the complex reaction formation of its own arguments for not being the one called anarchist. At that level, the one called communist seethes with a fatal, and anarchistic, narcissism for its small difference, and makes its appearance in the world, underlit, as something approximating a self-denying anarchist.