/dead/ - Post-Left

>>2664
I understood that you are making fun of reddit, that's why you should go back there.

>>2661
the ussr existed for a few use after that though and ever moved any closer to their goal

>>2667
how about you get the fuck off this board you authoritarian stalinoid bootlicking looser?
if you wanna sniff the farts of long dwad dictators go back to /leftypol/

>>2658
Perceptive post.

>>2661
A distraction from the matter at hand. The matter for discussion here isn't really the relative merits of the USSR, or of Marxism-Leninism versus Anarchism, or so on, it's about the pathology of latching onto these things, making them an identity, and then engaging in little ingroup-outgroup battles using them as a prop.

It's helpful to map this sort of thing onto sports. Yes, the Slurforindians have beaten the Slurforblacks in the world series and that's great, that's an objective sign they played the game better, etc. But you feel yourself part of a little group here - you see your team's victory as your own and it makes your own boring life feel more interesting, more exciting. You laugh in the faces of the other team, the losers, oh how they're hurting. But the thing is: you and them, you're the same. You didn't play the game, you didn't win anything, you're an observer rather than a participant in these events. But deep down inside the part of the monkey brain that once recognized your monkey gang had beaten the other monkey gang sees the ingroup fighting the outgroup and kicks into action.

People often warn that there's a skeleton inside you, but feed him milk and he will serve you well. The monkey inside you on the other hand is an eternal liability, he is a cheeky monkey, he wishes only to get up to monkey business and get you into trouble.

>>2661
This is such a gay and dishonest strawman. No fucking shit they couldn't "just do" communism. What they could have done was opened up their productive forces to the Democratic will of the prolotarates. But you faggots have a power fetish so. >Muh heckin

Go back to Reddit fag.

>>2639
I never thought marx as bombastic but you know go ahead and pretend like I wasnt talking about the greek fags and their counterparts who are totally not upper middle class people

>>2640
Don't disrespect the CCF like that, they are following the age-old proletarian tradition of only writing while in prison. Maybe if you said CrimethInc I would have said OK, but this is just plain dumb.

>>2641
>they are following the age-old proletarian tradition of only writing while in prison.
They were weiting sometimes lengthy communiques after actions tho.

>>2633
>Why is reading anarchist texts so much more enjoyable than leftist texts?
because you like to read things you already agree with and thus feel validated in your believes

Marxist are incredibly dry writers except for Trotsky.
To Marx’s credit, he is possibly the least dry economist of his time.
Also, Stirner’s writings are almost purposefully flamboyant and use a lot of literary devices to drive a point.
Marx was a much more systematic and you can see this clash of styles in his flat interpretation of Stirner.

>>1114
I kind of feel like this is a no-brainer. Obviously any recording made during action will be sighted and used by the government. The only problem is that I think mist people doing that shit don't give a fuck.
Like, to be in the head space to start streaming riots or protests you already have to have the sole goal of using the footage for vitrue signaling. It's like: look at me, I'm so revolutionary and woke, I am in the middle of the riot!
ANd since they don't care about achieving any real goals anyways and only entered the protest out of adventurism they also don't care if other people get fucked because of them.

Most of them seem to consider themselves brave indie journos and are larping as such. If they had any tact at all they'd be streaming footage to a server with no viewers (in case the pigs destroy the device) to edit later and submit as actual professional media.

bump

>>2629
This is some advanced form of sophism.

>>2631
I have read it but I don't remember Stirner talking about anarchists in it.

>>2632
whats the difference between social liberals (communists) and social anarchists though? both want to realise what they see as the reign of justness and humanity. of course social anarchists werent around in 1850's (aside from proudhon who stirner does mention), but max's critique of the early communists also fits them.

>>2637
one is cringe the other is based

>>1606
There's an egoist catgirl

test

shouldn't it be a skeleton regardless?

>>2608
Based sloganeering.
Will vote for whoever skelis are campaigning for here.

>>1537
hier, hab auch quelle

I asked because some people seem to be fixated on the fixed idea even though to me it does not seem to be the best term to describe a spook. Many seem to think that it means that the idea itself is fixed or unchanging, which is misleading. First of all, ideas are obviously changing all the time. If you attack the spooks of the priestly person they will start inventing all kinds of bullshit to defend their delusion. The idea might change in all kind of ways but if it is not destroyed, they will still have a fixed idea. Second, it implies that a willingness to change your mind is a possible way of escape. But weak conviction is not ownness. Changing your clothes every day does not make you a nudist. For whatever it's worth, I think Stirner would agree. Below are some quotes from the Spook book for an appeal to authority. In Art and Religion he describes religious thinking as "Understanding", which in Hegelian terms apparently means that it can only think about its object, but never beyond it. Stirner describes it as an obsession (without actually using the word), something that captures thought and does not let it go. However, Understanding consumes its object, and ceases to be as soon as it is understood. Therefore the object has to be constantly renewed, to preserve the mystery that fuels the obsession.

> So if criticism says: You are only human when you are restlessly criticizing and dissolving! Then we say: I am human in any case, and I am I as well; therefore I only want to take care to secure my property to myself, and to secure it, I continually take it back into myself, destroy in it every movement toward independence, and consume it before it can fix itself and become a “fixed idea” or an “obsession.”

> The good, returning under a thousand names and forms, always remained the premise, remained the dogmatic fixed point for this criticism, remained the—fixed idea.

> The idea of right is originally my idea, or it has its origin in me. But if it has sprung out of me, when the “Word” is out, then it has “become flesh,” a fixed idea. Now I no longer get away from the idea; whichever way I turn, it stands before me. So human beings have not again become masters of the idea “right,” which they themselves created: the creature is running away with them.

>>1452
It's called character development

bump

>>1534
>that that in german 'fixe Idee' also is a compliment for a good idea (which he probably uses ironicly)
he doesn't use it ironicly 'fixe Idee' always had a negative connotation it's an Idea which was developed very in a short period of time (fix) and therefore is stupid.

I will get a job soon and not having enough free time scares me so much

at least it isn't retail…….. right?

I make $?00k a year, I'm still a commie.

When I got a job the only thing I stopped being was happy.

I was a liberal at university and became a communist when I got a full time job so idk where the fuck this meme comes from

>>1518
>>1524

Also a sidenote: i think often we need a reason to live or justify what we do in general. This is interesting cause it poses itself as a high-level value that plugs into a low-level spot, by morally allowing action basically. But i think ultimately this is a necessary cope - the real desire that's hard to access is just to live and enjoy, but we need for some reason to give a proximal reason to it. This is why i say basically that we need spooks. We're never going to get rid of acting under the influence of irrational forces. If we get rid of the irrational forces, we lose all desire and reason to live or act. But we cant critique these things because they are too vulnerable to it and at the same time totally slippery to it. They're not able to be put under the blade of rational critique, and there is no "honest election" of choice when it comes to choosing what you value - its circular. So the best we can do is try to nurture what we see as positive meaning and value in our lives, and if we see none, then we need to somehow awaken it. And usually its various loves that do that. A love of nature, family, fellow workers, a passion project, a language, whatever. We need some kind of reason to say to us "hey, its okay to exist and make yourself happy", but without being that explicit about it. Thats exactly the unspoken part. We need something to put our libidinal energy into in order to be happy. And we need it to be irrational, and also our own "free choice" to obey this thing. It's higher powers all the way down, but thats egoism too i think, so dont get me wrong i dont see myself as against stirnoids and egoism or anything, just the basic ghostbuster mindset isnt always the cure - i read this article maybe? by Latour, known for being a big name in the critique of science, and he said that he still thinks that a lot of scientific ideas are vulnerable, but that doesnt necessarily mean we should tear them down in every way possible to see what we're left with, but rather we should nurture them. Maybe our power of critique/dismissal are too strong and dont unleash truth, or they give us a cold sort of truth like "i think therefore i am" type of useless truth, and to get anywhere good with our beliefs, we need to nurture what seems promising, and help grow our littPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1518
on the last point about theory, hmm
this is a fun one
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00697/full
idk i havent read anything that gives these ideas all as one together, i can tell that i base my thinking though on zizek and deluze a bit, deluze mainly for framing things and language i guess, and some freud too i guess. And probably others…. and of course my own experiences

>>1467

By realizing that those spooks were installed in your consciousness by institutions that have economic and political interests in keeping you subservient to them and the mode of production that sustains them, and the people in your life who have negatively sanctioned you for not adhering to said spooks live horrid existences centered around the reproduction of capital and simply bluff to feel less bad about themselves.

>>1467
Get swole

>>1951
how would that help