/dead/ - Post-Left

>>2613
ok im not an egoist anymore this post has convinced me how gay it is

>>2885
what does the OP have to do with egoim?

First the basic questions.
What the fuck are you talking about and why did you post it here?

>>2893
sir this is a /dead/…

>>2894
>sir this is a /dead/…
Yes. You still didnt explain. Why did you feel the need to post you schizo ramblings un /dead/, anon?

OP is baby and wants to be taken care of by mommy.

>>2864
Like lost children we live our unfinished adventures.

why yes I do want to be a househusband
how could you tell?

>>2864
Anything to take the unfathomable pain of living away

>>2803
thanks anon

Texhnolyze

>>2806
came here to post this, the other 2 ABe animes give this feel too

IM GONNA

> until my toughts reset
How to achieve this?

>>2557
Don't.

>>2557
have fun, don't forget to bring food

>>2759
Well, if you consider yourself unique, then equality would mean recognizing others as unique too. Inequality would be holding them as your superiors or inferiors.

>>2762
>>2762
>Well, if you consider yourself unique, then equality would mean recognizing others as unique too.
In a literal sense, I would have to agree. My unique I exists, as far as I can tell, alongside other I's who are unique. But there is no equality here other than Me and You fitting into the same ontological category.
What I mean is that the Unique famously describes the (creative) nothing, so the equality between them also describes nothing. In other words: their relation could be any. That I am unique and the other I is equally unique is true wether or not I am slave in Rome and they are an patrician, I am peasant and they are a feudal lord, or if I am antifa activist smashing a fashist with a stone. In every case I act upon them and they act upon me as equally unique beings. That is the reason I was curious how you would describe the content of equality without describing characteristics or identity, because if you use it through a stirnerite lense, it becomes meaningless.
So if this was you point all along, I agree: bring about the absolute euqality by declaring everyone equally unique and thusly kill the content of equality once and for all! But the second part of your post leaves me to believe you intended another interpretation.
>Inequality would be holding them as your superiors or inferiors.
You see this doesnt follow: if someone is my superior, be that in a hierarchy or in ability of mastering a certain field or whatever relation you could come up if, he would still be unique. Being unique doesn't have any conditions. Superiority or inferiority aren't disqualifiers when it comes it wether or not You are an unique being. In fact it could be argued that comparing My and Your properties, the set of things that our uniqueness contains, is a better way of identifying the me as an I than the insistence onour equality. Not holding someone as superior or inferior, because you recognise them as an equally unique individual, seems to me to imply that you shouldn't act maliciously towards them or at least in a way that befits a unique I. But this is peak spook territory, because you essentialise oneof their properties, their uniqueness, as their real existence. Stirner describes this with libPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2767
But if you see someone as your superior, and yourself as their inferior, how is that different from seeing both yourself and some other as Man (human being)?

>>2771
First off, somebody being in a superior or inferior position in a hierarchy is not really a matter of opinion - the individual on the top can enfroce their desire and the individual on the bottom has to give their desires up in favor of the others.
This describes a power dynamic which can be observed in the concrete world.
Seeing both yourself and others as Man (human beings) is a moral judgement. It means that you have a concept of what it means to be human (the essence of humanity) and judge people according to it. Since these concepts are only abstract copies of concrete things, you put up an abstraction of humans, something that doesnt describe any one individual but some vague, general human, as their real essence.
Abstractions are ideas and therefore can't be observed in the concrete world.
That's the difference.

Looked up equality in A Little Philosophical Lexicon of Anarchism from Proudhon to Deleuze, what do you think?

>>2782
I like that, thanks for the song recommendation!

>>2780
how about funeral doom?

>>2785
Never heard of it until now. I listened to some songs just now but it didn't really fit with me. I'll try to listen to more later and get a feel for it but yeah, doesn't feel like my thing. I don't really listen to much dark-sounding metal. I think I prefer faster, sloppier music, if that makes sense. Thank you for the music recommendation!

>>2783
Divtech is amazing

>>2741
I am not the one who has been preaching this whole thread how everyone will be magically saved if we subscribe to the correct ideology even through the facts make it absolutely clear that it is impossible. You are deluded.

>>2743
And what ideology was that exactly?

>>2742
t. Capitalist Realist

>>2745
You can scratch the "capitalist" out. Capitalists still believe that large scale agriculture is sustainable and happily keep on destroying the ecosystem for government subsidies.

>>2738
Sure, we might see ecological collapse, mass starvations and millions of refugees, but none of that is gonna stop the capitalist machiene from running if you ask me.

also
>reality of the situation
nice spook

>how do I unionize and start my revolutionary actions without losing the job?
you don't
good for you, you have a job now. Now you can spend all your time and energy for porkie, but hey at least you can eat. Rock the boat at you're expense. Not saying don't try, but be careful and think about why. Do you personally have grievences yet? Have you tried to resolve them?
Personally, I havent found that anyone gives a shit enough to make thier job better, and mangagement knows they can be narcsisistic shits so they dont care about you. All you can do is try to be equally selfish and retarded.
Which is coincidentally the whole goal of pushing this individualized, liberal, gentrified mindset on us. So it's bad to beleive this… but also this is the truth. They want you to think you can't fight them or organize. But also you can't fight them or organize (successfully).

Have a good week waging. I hope you make good money compared to your rent, and don't waste it all on videogames and weed and soda (or anything unhealthy for you).

For real… good luck and stay in good heath anon comrade,and try and make some friends

>>2100
from my experience, there are two types of people:
-the ones who really hate their work
-the ones who have convinced themselves they love their work because they think having a job you like is a condition of success and they wanna see themselves as successful

neither one of them is very easily persuaded into unionising. the first type wants nothing to do with his job, and unionising would usually mean spending extra time and energy on your job, so he doesnt like it. also, these people usually have already reignated any hope of improving their shitty job.
the second type would obviously oppose unionising because they wanna think they love their job, and improving the work situation would be the same as admitting that its not grat. they would probably infrom higher-ups too and try to frustrate your attemps.

gotta be honest: the leftist narrative of 'organise your workplace' is kinda unrealistic. in my country ate least there only exist those unions that have a history dating back to the 20th century. For example, the railroad workers have just started striking again, but their millieu is one that is typically associated with striking and unionising. People already percieve them that way and the railroad workers iudentify with it.
But other than that, there is basically no relevant union work going on. I think it's very hard to establish union culture in 21st century work spaces that just really arent associated with it.

>>2311
Agreed 100% with this post.
Congrats anon. I hope you keep your job.

>>2100
Henlo Anon. Congratulations on your position. I just wanted to add to the cynical perspecive regarding unionization. No matter what sorts of friendships you cultivate at your work place, your coworkers own up to the boss and their job first of all. I think it would be better praxis to agitate in the agora irl and online but it's best to form relationships, share a perspective, work towards small material goals. Self-organize for mutual aid.

>>2312
>the first type wants nothing to do with his job, and unionising would usually mean spending extra time and energy on your job, so he doesnt like it. also, these people usually have already reignated any hope of improving their shitty job.
I'm that guy.

>>2354
>>2337
>>2326
Yes?
https://board.prolesphere.one/
http://hbovvpi5bursxxga7excdp6axzf3zna3gy2pgvmlobrd5pqxj6sq2zad.onion

First 0ch and now this. Someone really does not want us to waste our time online.

Good news friends! >>>/music/2863

When will it come back? I miss talking to someone intelligent.

>>2730
never ever