[ 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

Password (For file deletion.)

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

| Catalog | Home


Can you be an anarchist and a buiness owner?

Or am i approching Anarchism the wrong way but asking about what dosen't make an anarchist? I haven't done that much theory reading, but i've run into anarchist who disregard theory all together.
37 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Sorry it is written in the big book
> Ass is all perfect! Because, in each moment, ass is all it can be, and never need to be more.


Sewerage systems how build?


Tankies don't understand this because their small pseudointellectual brains can't comprehend recursion in a social solution:
throw it next door.


quoting the meme line thats always taken out of context by ego-liberals


tf is a ego-liberal?
and from what perspective is this written, ego-conservative?

File: 1630694939480.jpg (8.91 KB, 190x281, Check it.jpg)


10 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I thought endchan was going to be shut down.


end/dead/ BO here, you can create boards by making an account and making a board. Simple process really.


>5 posters
thats actually a lot considering that most of the users there are from lefty/dead/ and have really done nothing but rarely posting


another anarchist success story


in comparrison to /leftypol/ it clearly is.
not existing means not being shit.

File: 1630872708505.jpg (7.21 KB, 170x296, skeleton_lantern.jpg)



What does /dead/ think about this article by an anarchist?

Are we approaching a new state of consciousness? or is it just bullshit?
I think the writer doesnt really understand the book that well, since they seem to not get that the idea of non-conscious volition is thought to be itself a form of authoritarian repetition of outside will, which is basically what they say we're turning into with technology and modern epistemological fears.


It does not make much sense to me. The original thesis sounds doesn't sound really convincing, and applying it to our present situation does not seem to help us at all. I much prefer this article: https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/superhumanity/66877/engineering-self/


IIRC Jaynes seems to frame "consciousness" as being a bit too foundational to our psychology. What he discusses seems more along the lines of a theory of self, something contained within your language or your "software." Different modes of consicousness make more sense as a tool for interpreting the more fundamental drives and biological states we have. Moving into some new mode of consciousness or theory of self does make sense in theory if the mode of production is transforming.

I see where the article is going and sure it makes some important points about where people's heads are at right now, but I think that the change we're seeing now is a different one. The bicameralism-to-consciousness change is a change in theory of self, but the current breakdown is in our relationship not to ourselves but to the reality around us. We mostly have a sense of who we are, but the heuristic failure being described indicates a breakdown in our ability to trust information about the world. Many alternative interpretations of reality are competing for our acceptance, so perhaps the change to happen here would be in our ability to imagine a "multiverse" of different interpretations that different people believe in, and someone with the new mindset would be more adept at "traversing" across different "alternate realities" by internalizing and understanding different beliefs about the way the world is, without necessarily accepting those beliefs themselves.

The capacity to do this sort of thing is already apparent when it comes to fiction. People love to get engrossed in fictional realities and to develop an understanding of some comic book universe and so on. The same kind of obsession with "lore" can be applied to the real world (as we see with people like history nerds), but also to the different political and social theories that compete with each other. Maybe in a similar way to the fiction Jaynes was using as a reference point to explore a change in psychology, contemporary fiction can tell us something about where people's minds are going. The multiverse concept has become pretty popular in recent years in fairly mainstream movies and TV.


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvUzdJSK4x8
Something to consider. I was watching this and they mention the bicameral mind at around 7:30. It is mentioned as a theory that posits that humanity needed a long historical development to reach consciousness. They claim the opposite, that (pre)history is best understood if we disregard the usual trope of the "stupid savage" living in blissful ignorance and assume that people in the past were aware of themselves and knew what they were doing.


Why are the people on leftypol such utter porkified faggots? All these people literally think in the confines set by capitalists, they all suffer from capitalist realism, I think the reason so many worship the USSR is largely because it wasn’t that far from regular porky society
12 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


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


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


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/


Perceptive post.

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.


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.

File: 1633215068390.png (41.67 KB, 226x223, 1624476469273.png)


Why is reading anarchist texts so much more enjoyable than leftist texts? Leftist theory is such a snoozefest while anarchist writers—Stirner, Novatorre, Goldman, for example—are actually enjoyable to read. It carries over to the modern age as well; leftist bloggers are complete autists arguing in their ivory toweries about obscure theory with zero IRL applications while anarchist writers write stuff that actually has some relevancy. For example, Desert, with all its faults, has lessons that are applicable to IRL All leftism has to offer are autistic bloggers like Jehu who argue the semantics of what Marx said ad nauseum.
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


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


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.


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


>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.


Short zine about how cops use livestream footage and why is it okay to smash the smartphones of live streamers.


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.




why did you bump a dead thread, janny?


Not a janny and I bumped it because the picture is funny.

File: 1610629138445.gif (893.85 KB, 480x256, watching gif.gif)


Hello? Ded?
11 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


This is some advanced form of sophism.


File: 1633183985273.jpg (177.97 KB, 1024x576, IMG_20200204_093026.jpg)


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


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.


one is cringe the other is based

File: 1632330798164.png (1.15 MB, 1920x1080, 1631908685893.png)


> I can’t resist mentioning once again the moronic theory that depicts productive forces “ripening” until they “give rise to” or “make possible” the “transition to a new social form.” Such “productive forces” do not exist apart from the “social form.” The artifices are integral parts of the artificial worm, they are nothing but its attributes. The technologies are the claws and fangs of the Leviathan. Silver mines and later water wheels do not give rise to the Islamic Leviathan; It gives rise to them. The types of technologies developed by a Leviathan depend primarily on the type of Leviathan in question, not on the “state of developmednt of global productive forces” cited by artifice fetishists. The Phoenicians developed, near the very dawn of Civilization, a maritime technology that would be unmatched until the appearance of a Leviathan with similarly extended tentacles.
Is Fredy right about this? It seems evident, that the social form does influence technology, and its progress. But is he right about it not happening the other way around? New technology cannot change the social form?
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>productive forces “ripening” until they “give rise to” or “make possible” the “transition to a new social form.”
That's not the hole story, advancements of productive forces are just a state of high potential for change. The ignition for those changes comes from class struggle. For the birth of capitalism the bourgoisie needed not just deploy steam engines but also overthrow the feudal aristocracy.

The large slave societies like the Roman empire were enabled by advances in sailboat technology (a type of sail that alowed ships to sail against the wind) but the slave merchants also needed to overthrow the clans that surounded the Mediterranean Sea to get control of the port cities.

The Soviet mode of production needed a proletarian revolution and electrification.


Is the whole book bullshit then?


I finished the book. It was entertaining, and it did make me want to leave civilization and never look back.


This. Haven't read the book but the argument quoted in OP is based on a straw man.


But the post you quoted just agreed that productive forces need to "ripen" to "make possible" the "transition to a new social form." How is it a strawman when you just replied to a post that honestly believes it?


Why doesnt /dead/ have a masquot/catgirl?
We should have a catgirl!
Any ideas?
32 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


There's an egoist catgirl




File: 1632519751861.jpg (238.11 KB, 1440x1440, skelelewd.jpg)


File: 1632521242302-0.jpg (42.71 KB, 192x196, 1420479577536.jpg)

File: 1632521242302-1.gif (210.88 KB, 713x1024, Dead Head Club.gif)

shouldn't it be a skeleton regardless?


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

File: 1632514508150.jpg (87.76 KB, 680x453, trot.jpg)


Eighty eight years of the day Trotsky directed the suppression of the anarchist uprising in Krondstadt, a group of bandits scaled the walls of his former house in Mexico City during the late hours at night. We broke the lock on his mausoleum and we expropriate the content inside it: a silver large vase that bears the inscription of his name, wrapped in the red scarf that he carried around the neck, containing the ashes of the corpse inside. We replace with care the lock in the monument with a reproduction that was similar in the appearance and escaped into the night.

The vase along with its content then was taken far away to a place where the vase was discarded and the content (a combination of ash and bone) were baked in cookies. These cookies then were sent, along with a letter that explains our actions, to newspapers, to organizations of Trotskyists, and to the groups of anarchist around the world.

While we will not repeat everything of our full letter, briefly we propose to give new light to the idea that history does not end with the past and still a small group of bandits can give new direction to fights thought long to be frozen in the time. We want to expand the fight to include dead objects of the past that hold hostage us in the present.

Nevertheless, if Trotsky is right about the history, we do not determine anything, but we are only characters whose actions were written in the revolution of October. As was his destiny, coincidentally, to come to be a cookie.

The ones that receive these cookies have a decision. Through time, the act to consume enemies have been seen as a way to absorb their powers. On the other hand, consuming the body and the blood of the dead person as a sacrament have also been a form of worship. We would want to indicate that, at any rate, the result is always shit.

For those a little delicate, we have tried them, and although they be a little sandy, they are delicious. The green dots, by the way, they are just candies.

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