/dead/ - Post-Left

>>2104
jealousy is such an incredibly toxic aspect of human relationships. i don't understand jealousy, and i don't tolerate it in my own relationships

Isn't it profoundly anti-egoist to ask what the proper egoist view is before doing something

Jfc just read Sade

>>2137
not if you consider other egos as an extension of your own, such that asking them questions and receiving answers to those questions amounts to nothing more than a self-dialogue

>t. transcendental metaphysicist, panentheistic, cosmic solipsist egoist

>>2033
fuck you

wouldn't it already be your property? just go and take it

>>2030
TRUE!!!

print your own bae

I don't think that's Stirner.

Poor Samuel Beckett. Wrote one of the most important tragicomic postmodern plays of its timen, won a bloody Nobel Prize and now his likeness is only remembered as being "almost le epic egoism man".

>>2025
Stirner had blond hair and blue eyes.

>>2026
the ubermensch!

Check

test

test

test

test

Stirner had a hard life.

Personas can't get married.

>>1985
yeah I heard this theory before, I think its partially true

>>1988
It's obvious. "Stirner" "died" of a bug bite, which is absurd, and nobody attended his funeral except Bruno Bauer, who also arranged the funeral, and his grave lists him as "Max Stirner" rather than his actual real name, there aren't even photographs of him. We think he exists because Engels and Marx and other Young Hegelians said he did, they made him up and gave him an entire philosophy of spooks as a big joke because he is himself a spook.

>>1989
>nobody attended his funeral except Bruno Bauer
That's rough.

>>1985
Unless Engels faked an entire life's worth of writings, documents and other people's personal accounts for a period of decades, that's bullshit.

>>1989
It was not a bug bite, but a common tumor which was suggested to be because of the bite of a poisonous fly. The grave is listed as Max Stirner because that's the name he used most often in his later years, and all who cared about him by the time of his death would have referred to him as such. The lack of photographs can be explained by a combination of chance and the fact that he lived in poverty for a significant amount of his life and was a very cloistered person.

>>1985
I doubt it otherwise das kapital would be tainted

what's the point of anything?

>>1993
to have fun and watch while the world around us slowly wastes away

>>2000
>Have fun

After the riots died down now it is just back to being cynical and jaded.

>>2000
>to watch others have fun and watch while the world around us slowly wastes away*
ftfy

>>1978
>ARTICLE 1: OUR MISSION
The mission of /leftypol/ at leftypol.org is to provide a fun and enjoyable space for the working
masses around the world, as an anonymous community of non-sectarian leftists united in
common cause against the forces of capitalism, fascism, and liberalism. Our goal is to act as a
centre for serious political discourse and less serious informal discussions on various topics
related to leftist thought.
We aim to be the negation of /pol/; anti-fascist, materialist, better read. Our mission, above all, is
to learn, and help others learn, the philosophical tools necessary to elucidate the interrelated and
ever-increasingly complex space of self, society, and politics, from the local to the global scale.
An important part of /leftypol/’s unique character is our opposition to identity politics. We
believe that conflicts between genders, races, sexualities, and so on are distractions from the
wider class struggle that are intentionally fanned by the ruling class. This does not mean that
oppression based on personal characteristics does not exist, but that it should be approached
from an egalitarian perspective which is not personally accusatory and does not assign ‘victim’
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

> What would Stirner say to solidarity?
I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being.

In my opinion the key to understanding The Unique and Its Property is Stirner's article "Art and Religion". It's not that good and the thick Hegelian jargon is a bit hard to decipher but it lays down the problem statement and goal of the ego book in a pretty straightforward way. At least in my headcanon.

Post-leftism (most closely associated with post-left anarchism because anarchists are a lot more open to criticizing their forebears failures and foibles than a lot of other left tendencies, *but are by no means perfect about this*) is a critique of the self-castration of the left by its insistence on being boring and labyrinthine and just generally unbearable. A lot of leftists don't like that, but the results leftists have had impeding the creeping doom of this neoliberal hellscape speak for themselves. We suck at changing the modern world, and we aren't going to stop sucking at it until we stop clinging to outmoded models of political and economic change.

To be clear, I'm a communist. I'm an anarchist. I even like Soviet imagery, that stark red flag with the gold star, hammer, and sickle is fucking *electric*. Peak aesthetic, my god that flag is gorgeous. But we're not gonna get anywhere jerking off the corpses of men who've been dead for a century. If "leftist" politics are about aesthetic and feeling special? Sure, have at it. But if we want to help people, and make the world better, we need better models of organization and praxis that aren't just more of a drag on our already-burdened souls. We need protests and political rallies and stuff to be fun and emotive and thrilling, not boring fucking marches like the libs love so much.

I will never see mature communism, mature anarchy. I won't live that long. If I do, great! I'll be stoked as hell. But I won't. And that's okay, I don't need to. Anarchy is a guiding principle for me, it is my North Star. So it doesn't fucking matter if I organize with non-anarchists, does it, as long as our goals are in the same direction of making regular people's lives better and loosening the chains around all of our necks? This is why socdems, yes, cringe as they are, have so much more success than anarchists whining about how the Black Army was dong wrong or MLs talking about how *AKCHUALLY* Stalin did nothing wrong because \[blah blah fuckin blah, who cares the man's been dead since fifty-three give it a goddamn rest\], and all that have absolutely no fucking relevance. That's all *way* more cringe than socdems or electoral politics are. Sure, sucks Makhno and Ukraine got done raw by the Bolsheviks. What does this information empower me to do today? Instead of talking about theoretical bullshit a hundred years ago or a hundred years from now, socdems are actually talking about thePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>Did I get that right?
Yeah pretty much I agree with you so far.

>E.g. knowingly not caring about the suffering of others kind of feels bad, not sure if that is a "spook", too.
If you only cared because it was a moral expectation that made you care in the first place, that would be spooked in the sense that you try to correspond to an idea of good that entails that you are only good, a real person, when you care. This idea would be a fixed one and you would behave according to it.
However, I think most people would feel bad for them out of empathy, out of their own desire that others dont suffer.

>What would Stirner say to solidarity?
This is a part that alot of ppl get wrong about Stirner on first glance because of his strong defence of self-interest - but said interest isn't vulgar as in 'only doing things that enrich you materially'. Because Stirner was a pupil of Hegel and not some libertarian market fanatic he sees humans as social. We use each other according to our desires, but that desires also include the desire for friendship or love. As >>1976 quoted, he feels a fellow feeling towards feeling beings, empathy. In fact, it haven't been the egoists (as Stirner defines them, those centering their action on their unique being and desire) who caused and carried out the greatest atrocities in history, but selfless people, involuntarily acting in the name of something outside themselves (god, the race, the nation).
One of my favourite allegories here is that only an egoist gifts a friend a present out of his own desire, while the involuntary actor, who does it because it's the right thing to do, or it's custom and expected from them, always has other motives behind his action.
Egoism doesnt set rules for any behavior, its rather the consequent critique of such rules. If you find it fulfilling to show solidarity because it's your inner desire, it's an egoist act.

>>1947

Hello,

I am a new user from reddit.

What is this space for.

How do I get bf for my gf lol.

My toilets is broken so I dug a hole in my backyard and took a shit in broad daylight my neighbors dog started barking at me but I don't think anyone saw me :)

>>1949
did you get a gf?!

>>1952
Yes, I made her a crypto-egoist

I forgot this place existed, lol.