[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/dead/ - Post-Left

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

| Catalog | Home
|

File: 1608528373221.png (489.08 KB, 1806x2622, cafr0.png)

 No.502[Reply]

Do people still read anarchistnews or how do they keep up with the international happenings concerning anarchists?

 No.506

>international happenings concerning anarchists
like, what is there except rojava and individualist authors facing charges of child abuse?

 No.507

I read socialist alternative every now and then.

 No.508

>>506
Ever increasing repression? Back when ITEOTWAWKIAIFF was airing there was a story about government crackdown on anarchists in Brazil/Russia/etc. every other episode.

 No.509

>>508
>Ever increasing repression?
That's not news, that's the state of things. As long as I know there is a government, I can be pretty sure that there is repression against anarchists going on.

 No.512

File: 1608528373953.jpg (43.95 KB, 620x597, CxMEWcZUQAAOKpa.jpg)

>>509
It pays to be up to date on the current methods. Who knows when will they come for you for that two character edit you did on The Anarchist Library in 2014?



 No.500[Reply]

Is there still any point to green politics or should we just prepare for the worst?
29 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.618

>>613
>>616
the world's population can be fed easily

 No.638

>>618
>runs out of topsoil
>EROI on fossil fuels
>phosphate loss

 No.639

>>638
that's why we need sustainable production, not more of it

 No.643

>>612
i will admit that the needs for penicillin and post-stroke surgery are relatively recent inventions and a byproduct of the pursuit of accumulation

but you see, people will still literally die without them

if you die without something it is a need and capitalist accumulation doesn't enter into it

basic education is another example of a need that is hugely underserved by current production. the lack of it kills people and causes damage to nature and property all the time. education is a service so all that is produced is also consumed, so clearly we don't produce enough

>>639
how do you make production sustainable without causing an increase in any sector?

 No.649

>>639
at this point we're probably in a position where that's not all that possible considering various feedback loops and the lag in terms of emissions causing CO2 rise
We're locked in for at least 2C minimum, which is non-compatible with current human industrial civilization, and the IPCC is shifting their opinion to a more likely 5C increase this century given that even their worst case scenarios are looking optimistic



File: 1608528372885.jpg (110.47 KB, 1280x720, mpv-shot0010.jpg)

 No.499[Reply]

Someone tell me what's the deal with Tiqqun/Agamben and civil war.

 No.503

they literally have a book called "introduction to civil war", why don't you read it? it's one of their better ones, too



File: 1608528371329.jpeg (279.39 KB, 1080x555, daz.jpeg)

 No.476[Reply]

fuck mods

 No.479

this board shows on the overboard I think

 No.493

based

 No.736

File: 1608528389740.png (47.11 KB, 471x500, 1446145193905.png)

>>>/tech/3728 It is confirmed now.

Welcome to /dead/, liberated territory on Bunkerchan.

 No.738

File: 1608528389923.jpg (15.06 KB, 241x386, Novatore.jpg)

Based



File: 1608528370795.png (76.75 KB, 786x501, spook of all spooks.png)

 No.468[Reply]

This has been my understanding for the longest time, not long after I really engaged with Stirner's works, after it was pointed out to me that the ego itself is a spook. This was reinforced by the fact that the old English translations of Stirner were poor and gave readers the impression that he was an egoist who advocated for egoism and cared only for the ego rather than the unique / creative nothing. Wolfi Landstreicher's translation of The Unique and Its Property redressed these historical failures somewhat, but the translation is only 3 years old. When I read Stirner's Critics (again Wolfi's translation), I felt vindicated on this by how Stirner seemed to coyly agree with his critics that the ego is "the spook of all spooks", yet disputed that he didn't mean this all along.

After revisiting Stirner's Critics again, however, I find that Stirner always attributed "the spook of all spooks" in quotes and never seemed to explicitly agree, even though he describes the unique as an "empty phrase" and a name for what cannot be named. His first mention of "the spook of all spooks" is in a paragraph immediately recounting Moses Hess' critical review of Stirner's The Unique and Its Property, and seems to attribute this phrasing to Hess—though the paragraph break gives me a different impression, as if he is both attributing it to Hess and affirming the description of "the pale boaster". There was no need for that break and it was inconsistent with how he treated his summaries of Szeliga's and Feuerbach's critiques.

Yet what Stirner then affirms about the unique is basically that it is an empty signifier, that it is a form without content, since you are the content. (Isn't that what a spook is, a form without content?) He then proceeds to describe the content of the unique, which is beyond the boundaries of language altogether. His clarifications in Stirner's Critics corroborates with his original work of describing the "self" as ultimately transient, contingent, ephemeral, and always created in the moment from the void of the creative nothing. This coheres with the conception of the unique as a nomination for identifying some ego-form for the creative nothing, and for this notion of "I" to be a mistake of misplaced concreteness about one's own reality.

This seems to be the reading of Wolfi, as well, along with many of the other more intellectual Stirnerians, such as Castanea Dentata iPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
5 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.487

>>468
The way I understand it, a spook is, first and foremost, an abstraction. So the content of the spook is based on an imagined or percieved phenomenon. A spook without content, without fixed ideals can not exist.
The self holds no contents that could be fixed at any point, for it is nothing. That means that the self is only identified by exactly NOT having any fixed parts, and therefore can not be abstracted. It's content is whatever the self makes of itself, but it doesn't have to have any goal in mind here, but can literally make itself into anything.
Of course you can make a spook out of the self, by attributing (like you already mentioned) for example vulgar egoism to it as its inevitable content. The self is not an Randian egoist as in an egoist who only tries to knock down others for his own gain, but rather as in the act of relating everything to its will. And if the egoist, the self wants to sacrifice himself for other people, and wants to do so out of his own pleasure, not to serve a spook, he is still an egoist, cause he related the sacrifice to his own will instead of instead of morality. Not "I want to sacrifice myself cause it's the right thing" rather "I want to sacrifice myself for my sake, cause it fulfills my desire".
The vulgar, spooked egoist adheres to the abstraction of egoism, and even if his lover is in peril, and his psyche is telling him that the loved ones life is worth sacrificing oneself for cause of what she/he means to him, he still obeyes the order of the spook called 'egoist' demanding him to save himself and let his lover die. For the abstraction of what egoism means, he gives away his actual self-fulfillment.

 No.491

>>487
Some clarifications which may dispel the apparently cross purposes here: by "content" I mean material content, as in spooks are spectral forms that lack any material content, literal Ideas much like Plato conjured to subsume all the unique particularities of and around us; and by the self, I mean precisely this idea of the self, this abstraction, this fixed concept of who and what you are and how you understand yourself in identitarian, categorical terms which petrify you into yet another Being in the world (or Being-in-the-world) rather than yet another object ever in the process of Becoming. So the self is a spook because there is no fixed identity to which we can refer in describing the contents of "I", there is no identity to which we can affix the "I"; the self, the concrete creative nothing we call the unique, is a content without form because it is not an idea but a body in space, a body which itself is utterly unique beyond the confines of any formal model. This content is the creative nothing, a nothing that does not mean merely empty, but rather that from which everything springs — and so that which contains everything. There is no form for this content because this content is the content of all existence. Or, to put it in more Marxian terms:

&ltThe self is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call the self the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

Perhaps my largest problem with sustaining this "egoist" language of and about Stirner is that it fundamentally no longer works once both the ego and the ideology which is constructed therefrom (the -ist) have been exposed as spooks as well. For me, I am not an egoist because I am Stirnerian in my thinking. I reject the identity, the framework, altogether as insufficient to capture what it means to be a creative nothing and to seek to liberate that creative nothing from all that fetters it — to liberate me from all that fetters me. Indeed, such language constrains me as a creative nothing by limiting my ability to communicate myself except in terms which have been so thoroughly abused aPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.494

>>491
What makes this creative nothing different from a self?

 No.495

>>494
There is no phantasmic form of the creative nothing. Whereas the self can, if not necessarily must, be a spooky form without content; there is no possible conceptualization of the creative nothing as formless content which can generate a spook of itself. This is precisely because of the nature — or rather nomination — of the creative nothing itself. There can be misunderstandings of precisely what Stirner meant by the creative nothing, and attempts at reconsidering the creative nothing through revisions of theory, but by virtue of the creative nothing being the absolute debasement of existence situated beyond all boundaries of language — such that the Outside is its only home — and a non-conceptual description of a pre-conceptual embodiment that resists all attempts at comprehension, the creative nothing is the anti-spook of all anti-spooks; the desecrated individual, which none can chase from the self; the dark debaser.

You are a spook; the creative nothing is you.

 No.497

>>491
But how is every idea of the self a spook? To be a spook, the idea must spook (spucken), by that I mean the idea must somehow have a relation to my own will, either affirming or contradict it. If my self, as in my identity, is the idea I have of myself based on what my different properties are, it is not an ought-to-be, but a description. The description neither affirms nor contradicts what my individuality is supposed to be, it simply states what I hold. But I can let everything I hold go because my identity is not fixed.
Do you think that every idea, every thought we make about the world is a spook? Because the way I understand it, Stirner took care to describe a spook as a certain type of geist (idea), which is different from just regular thoughts we make about the world, in that the spook has power over us because of the way we think/percieve it. But if I take the thought back as mine, cause I am it's originator, it has no power over me. Why wouldn't I be able to take the idea of my self back as mine?



File: 1608528370665.jpg (313.25 KB, 1500x1500, mayancalender.jpg)

 No.467[Reply]

According to experts, the Gregorian calendar was introduced to better reflect the time it takes Earth to orbit the Sun. But it is believed by many that as many as 11 days were lost from the year that was once determined by the Julian calendar.

Over time these lost days add up and now a conspiracy theory has cropped up which claims that we should actually be in the year 2012, not 2020.

In a since deleted tweet, scientist Paolo Tagaloguin reportedly said: “Following the Julian Calendar, we are technically in 2012. The number of days lost in a year due to the shift into Gregorian Calendar is 11 days. For 268 years using the Gregorian Calendar (1752-2020) times 11 days = 2,948 days. 2,948 days / 365 days (per year) = 8 years”.

Following this theory, June 21, 2020 would actually be December 21, 2012.

It may be recalled that in 2012, December 21 was proposed by some as the end of the world by conspiracy theorists.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/reading-of-mayan-calendar-suggests-end-of-the-world-is-next-week
6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.505

>>504
THE DAY AFTER THE FINAL DAY

 No.510

>>505
welcome to year zero day zero

 No.511

The whole 2012 apocalypse theory is based on the fact that the 12th Baktun was ending in 2012 and any modifications of the theory is silly.

We should go back to listening to crazy Abrahamists again.

 No.516

And… literally nothing happened

 No.911

>>516
>corona virus



File: 1608528369931.png (728.1 KB, 631x631, 23.png)

 No.459[Reply]

tell me about your everyday life

 No.460

File: 1608528370091.jpg (112.43 KB, 670x900, dailylife.jpg)


 No.461

File: 1608528370189.png (805.45 KB, 773x1280, 0011751a07dd0f1d.png)


 No.490

>>459
Usually I get up at 12:00 pm, smoke weed and eat breakfest. Then I check my phone seeing who wants to buy something off me for the day. I take care of that shit, usually read when I'm back home, eat something, smoke more weed, and read more or play vidya. Thats about it.

 No.560

>>459
>wake up
>speak to nobody but family a few times a day
>literally just wait to eat since it's the only thing I enjoy anymore, but even that i must restrict since i don't wanna be fat
>constantly worrying about everything
>learn some welsh, only constructive thing I can motivate myself to do since I can't find a job literally anywhere
>go to bed
>repeat.

 No.562

>>560
Lux?



 No.450[Reply]

The cult of living – which is by paradox a cult of living death, must be destroyed.https://downandoutdistro.noblogs.org/files/2019/10/letmedie.pdf

 No.451

Local mirror of the zine.

 No.454

now that is some edgy shit

 No.989

>>450
Painfully edgy and hyperbolic, but still saddening and thought provoking.



File: 1608528368687.jpg (199.85 KB, 1200x797, riot-moldova.jpg)

 No.442[Reply]

soul-crushing depression reminds me that I'm alive, but it doesn't make me happy to be alive. Why is life so fucking depressing?

 No.443

>>442>soul-crushing depression reminds me that I'm aliveWouldn't that be something only a dead person would experience?

 No.448

>>443how could a dead person be depressed

 No.449

File: 1608528369149.jpg (413.31 KB, 795x800, mark thompson.jpg)

Only my hope of death is keeping me alive.

 No.452

>>4492deep4me

 No.453

>>448How could a living one be?



File: 1608528367947.jpg (149.14 KB, 500x374, 1486204935369.jpg)

 No.432[Reply]

> it's for the good of the economy> you can't do that, it would hurt the economy> you should study what the economy needs> you don't want to live in poverty? too bad the economy is in a downturn> sorry we have to fire you because of the economy> don't worry, the economy will save us once it is nationalised/socialised/democratized/cybernetic/liberated/sexualisedWhy do people put up with this shit?
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.436

>>432funny how such a spook could be a euphemism for very real class-interest

 No.465

>>436
>class interest is real
haha no

 No.466

The biggest spook of them all is you, my property. You are the spook of all spooks, the pale boaster, an empty phrase, a creative nothing.

 No.473

File: 1608528371108.jpg (161.99 KB, 1264x1630, 1588478377571.jpg)

>>466
How can I be a spook if nobody believes in me?

 No.484

>>473
Because you believe in you, even if you think you don't, by virtue of believing in a you.

Also, some ghosts are forgotten and become so completely neglected that they seem to no longer exist. But they're still there, haunting the same hallows and hollows, only they have become invisible to those found their wake.



Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 ]
| Catalog | Home