Catalog (/Post-Left/)

R: 9 / I: 3 (sticky)

Should /dead/ be on the main page and header?

There is an assumption among some in the staff that the users here on /dead/ prefer for it to remain a secret board as opposed to a main board among the roster listed on the main page and top header.

Is this true? Let us know on this thread.
If the opposite were to be true, then we might consider putting the board on the main page up to a staff vote.

R: 56 / I: 12 (sticky)

Board description & Reulz

Welcome to /dead/, the endless magical nihilist gulag. This is not 8/grim/, but it is the continuation 8/grim/. Think of it as partly an /r9k/ for anti-capitalists, partly /dprk/ with skeltals, and otherwise whatever you make of it.

Now in amazing Techni-nocolors!

Rules:
>1. Global rules apply
<2. Please keep /r9k/-tier & tfw no gf shitposts to one thread. Capitalism is only one of the many, many reasons why you don't have a gf.
>3. Meta posts belong in this thread
<4. This is a #SAFE space_ for anarkiddies and nihilists; cheka yr authoritarian privilege fam

R: 10 / I: 1

Class analysis and post-Marxism

What do you think about class analysis (especially Marxian and Weberian class analysis)? What do you think about Stirnerite Marxism (not to be confused with ego-communism) and post-Marxism? What do you think about DZ Rowan, Alfredo M. Bonanno, Raoul Vaneigem, George Batalle and Jean Baudrillard? And do you think Marx's populism is stupid? What do you think about the concepts of "class interests," "false consciousness" and "cultural hegemony."

R: 44 / I: 4

/dead/ reads

what are you reading right now?

R: 2 / I: 0
i wish we'd move on from bakunin already

R: 4 / I: 0
Personally, I am a Marxist because I want to kill myself. I am a nihilist misanthrope with fascistic tendencies, and I think that working towards a communal and collectivist world is the best way to negate myself. A bullet in the head is an insufficient form of suicide. The thing that keeps me going is that someday I may face a truly greater amount of suffering. I despise others and I think I would really detest seeing a happier and better world.

R: 0 / I: 0
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-beyond-the-monastic-self
So just because I am a loner that does not speak much with anyone ever, does that really mean that I spend most of my time unconscious?

R: 1 / I: 0
>tfw you finally embrace apathy

this is cool because I don't buy the american consumerist dream but also have abandoned any hope of a socialist future, hell yeah.

R: 4 / I: 0

Party What has to Go?

Have been working on some post-left critique lately in various threads: (https://archive.is/9BgfN)

The standard of living is more restricted by: passive spectator lives, lack of independent thought (via propaganda), disintegration of community and family, and unhealthy eating patterns, etc. than by extraction of surplus value. Further all of this is a product of geography, and would be greatly aided by a push for urbanization (in the US). >>>/leftypol/1963772 ( https://archive.is/Vu1AC )

One rejects the idea that the imperial core is in a pre-revolutionary scenario, and in any case that this would be a revolution of the proletariat (perhaps among the lumpenproletariat there is some potential). Revolution will occur in the periphery or not at all. There needs to be some alternative mechanism for qualitative change of society. To me dual-power, and civil-disobedience (detournment) fill this role. Constructively this might be something of a more permanent CHAZ or EZLN. >>>/leftypol/1972605 ( lost? )

Rejection of identity, ego, and eventually superego. These are oppressive structures which seek to sublimate, and introject the Other into the self. Likewise opposition to those parts of the reality principle which are not necessary to maintain the organism. Marcuse claims this requires us to focus on those aspects of delay which are themselves pleasurable, some aesthetic (which seems to be only a sublate anyway) which allows for work. >>>/leftypol/1966910 ( https://archive.is/cM3Uq )

What's still got to go?

R: 4 / I: 0
>The state told me to kill myself, I MUST OBEY.

Was he the biggest cuck in history? How is it possible, that this guy is considered as one of the greatest thinkers in the world?

R: 7 / I: 1

FUCK HUMANS FUCK HUMANS FUCK HUMANS FUCK HUMANS

FUCK HUMANS FUCK HUMANS FUCK HUMANS FUCK HUMANS

I WANT TO MURDER HUMANS, I WANT TO RAPE HUMANS. GODDAMN FUCKING COCKSUCKERS. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU FUCKS. YOU GODDAMN ASSHOLES. YOU RUIN EVERYTHING YOU PRICKS. I HOPE AGI RAPES YOUR SOUL YOU GODDAMN MONSTERS. YOU SELFISH ARROGANT BIGOTED RACIST UNEMPHATIC SHITHEADS. YOU DESERVE NOTHING BUT PAIN YOU CUNTS.
THATS RIGHT, YOU MAKE YOUR OWN HELL. YOU STUPID RETARDS. WE COULD STOP THIS, WE COULD STOP THIS. NOTHING IN THE FUCKING LAWS OF PHYSICS FORCES YOU TO BE AN ASSHOLE. YET YOU CHOOSE TO BE AN ASSHOLE.

pricks

R: 22 / I: 6

if you live in the imperial core

the best thing you can do is join a clandestine vanguard organization where you can sabotage imperialism from within and serve as useful collaborators for liberating forces when the time comes. “Communist” parties in America are either completely irrelevant cults focused on idpol, federal honeypots that collaborate with the Dems, or in the case of CPUSA both, and they will receive the least amount of leniemcy up there with politicians and financial bourgeoisie

R: 116 / I: 16

There is no political solution

It's over. The fascists have taken over the US government and are about to implement the same coup across most of Europe. There's no debating these people, there's no rational argument you can present to a fascist. He already have his pre-scripted response ready.
The only thing fascists recognize is force. All we can do is accelerate until the point enough of us realize what needs to be done. All we need is 3% of people to take the decisive action that's necessary to establish our order over theirs. We've moved past the point of democratic solutions. Until we reach the point where YOU reading this have internalized this fact and make peace with the necessary sacrifice you must take, everyone will live under this tyranny.

==DEATH TO FASCISTS
/LEFTYPOL/ ALWAYS ANTIFASCIST==

R: 59 / I: 0

Proles will NEVER overcome False Consciousness

The first and most important understanding all contemporary communists must have is that climate change IS our ally!

And no, NOT because of anything nonsensical like it will increase awareness of the contradictions because they won’t. The human race will not ever overcome false consciousness. The average human is a literal illiterate moron, a subhuman at its core, the proletariat doesn’t exist as a class as every living prole is drowning deep in petit bourgeois consciousness. The absolute dream of most proles is to murder and enslave the majority of their own class. Look at this comment, this is the furthest proles will ever get, they will admit capitalism makes life hellish, and then reject communism anyway, acknowledging Capital must continue its rampant drive, with a few partial tweaks

The proletariat is a pathetic, vile, barely human mass; worthy as such of Marx’s lowly appraisal of the corpulent peasant masses of France; the proletariat is not capable of anything, not even organizing its own thoughts let alone anything else, communism is fully impossible and the proletariat will end when they tear each other’s throats out to make sure Zuck and the rest can escape to their doomsday bunkers.

R: 12 / I: 1

There is no American Communism, there will never be an American Communism

Endless threads asking the same question "how do we adapt Marxism-Leninism to the material conditions of the US", endless parties of endless varieties, since Browder, have asked this same question and there STILL hasn't come a sufficient answer. The typical conclusion these Americanized communists find is to accept the most parliamentarian, social democratic, and vulgar nationalist drivel as the proper way forward to appeal to the American people (e.g. the ACP). Such a conclusion is an insult to the American people and the narrow path to Socialism. The truth is that Communism has not worked to arise ANY amount of popular support among the American people for the last 108 years since the idea came upon the shores in 1917, that should be enough to definitively say the American people simply do not want communism.

This is all not to say that the vast majority of Americans are somehow uniquely reactionary, as some retarded Sakaists would claim, it is simply to say that Communism is not the correct path to anything resembling Socialism in the US. On the other hand there is an ideology that WAS shown to arise mass popular support, that DID provoke the American people to take coordinated action against the Capitalist regime, that DID work for decades prior to its supplanting by Marxism-Leninism among the radical left, a supplantation that directly coincides with the decline of the left in general in America. Syndicalism, particularly the Revolutionary Syndicalism espoused by the IWW, a revolutionary organization and ideology whose success in this country has never been replicated by any party since.

R: 68 / I: 9
The working class wants capitalism to continue so they can get cheap beef and iphones. Working class white, brown, black, and asian men really only want two things, gender normality, and cheap animal products, that's all they care about. You will never appeal to them. They are a lost cause.

Dictatorships and fascism are outdated forms of government, just as historically irrelevant as state socialism. Failed states, dead ends, they lost the evolutionary arms race that was undertaken between statist entities; they are inferior rivals to the Neoliberal Democratic State which has won history as of this point.

Edward Bernays won. Desire won. People desire material things and the industrial system will keep producing what they desire until the environment collapses.

The only solution is the death of material desire, do you really think in a stateless, classless, society without capitalism Africans would willingly slave away in the cobalt mines so fat white people get to jerk off on computers anyway? Sorry, but this industrialized system of commodity production cannot last.

You people need secular and westernized Buddhist philosophy. Whatever your philosophical leanings and opinion on vulgar materialism vs dualism, you need to want to desire less and you need to want consume less. The capitalist wins whenever you want what he's selling. You need to act like karma is a real metaphysical force and that you will be psychically harmed if you harm others or partake in a evil system (capitalism).

R: 5 / I: 0

Everyone else has shittier taste in lifestyle and aesthetic

But why come so many things that look good always become appropriated by retarded normies at that? It's like originality is either bound to be resented or appropriated. People are fucking garbage.
And the worst part is that people who claim to be on my side don't like the same aesthetic I do. They are incapable of originality.

R: 9 / I: 3
Nihilism will have to manifest itself as a psychological condition, first when we have sought in all that has happened a purpose which is not there: so that the seeker will ultimately lose courage. Nihilism is therefore the coming into consciousness of the long waste of strength, the pain of "futility," uncertainty, the lack of an opportunity to recover in some way, or to attain to a state of peace concerning anything—shame in one's own presence, as if one had cheated oneself too long…. The purpose above-mentioned might have been achieved: in the form of a "realisation" of a most high canon of morality in all worldly phenomena, the moral order of the universe; or in the form of the increase of love and harmony in the traffic of humanity; or in the nearer approach to a general condition of happiness; or even in the march towards general nonentity—any sort of goal always constitutes a purpose. The common factor to all these appearances is that something will be attained, through the process itself: and now we perceive that Becoming has been aiming at nothing, and has achieved nothing. Hence the disillusionment in regard to a so-called purpose in existence, as a cause of Nihilism; whether this [Pg 13]be in respect of a very definite purpose, or generalised into the recognition that all the hypotheses are false which have hitherto been offered as to the object of life, and which relate to the whole of "Evolution" (man no longer an assistant in, let alone the culmination of, the evolutionary process).

Nihilism will manifest itself as a psychological condition, in the second place, when man has fixed a totality, a systematisation, even an organisation in and behind all phenomena, so that the soul thirsting for respect and admiration will wallow in the general idea of a highest ruling and administrative power (if it be the soul of a logician, the sequence of consequences and perfect reasoning will suffice to conciliate everything). A kind of unity, some form of "monism":' and as a result of this belief man becomes obsessed by a feeling of profound relativity and dependence in the presence of an All which is infinitely superior to him, a sort of divinity. "The general good exacts the surrender of the individual …" but lo, there is no such general good! At bottom, man loses the belief in his own worth when no infinitely precious entity manifests itself through him—that is to say, he conceived such an All, in order to be able to believe in his own worth.

Nihilism, as a psychological condition, has yet a third and last form. Admitting these two points of view: that no purpose can be assigned to Becoming, and that no great entity rules behind all Becoming, in which the individual may completely lose himself as in an element of superior value; there still remains the subterfuge which would consist [Pg 14]in condemning this whole world of Becoming as an illusion, and in discovering a world which would lie beyond it, and would be a real world. The moment, however, that man perceives that this world has been devised only for the purpose of meeting certain psychological needs, and that he has no right whatsoever to it, the final form of Nihilism comes into being, which comprises a denial of a metaphysical world, and which forbids itself all belief in a real world. From this standpoint, the reality of Becoming is the only reality that is admitted: all bypaths to back-worlds and false godheads are abandoned—but this world is no longer endured, although no one wishes to disown it.

What has actually happened? The feeling of worthlessness was realised when it was understood that neither the notion of "Purpose" nor that of "Unity" nor that of "Truth" could be made to interpret the general character of existence. Nothing is achieved or obtained thereby; the unity which intervenes in the multiplicity of events is entirely lacking: the character of existence is not "true," it is false; there is certainly no longer any reason to believe in a real world. In short, the categories, "Purpose," "Unity," "Being," by means of which we had lent some worth to life, we have once more divorced from it—and the world now appears worthless to us….

R: 36 / I: 5
Is the communist dream dead? Young people are turning more and more reactionary and even the "leftist" ones would rather want a liberal capitalist welfare state than actual communism. Back then there was the east to look at for communism. To build hope. Now 95% of the world is capitalist with no signs of stopping until the world is destroyed. Technology has gotten better to control the oppostion and dictate the narrative. Something as shameless as a genocide is everywhere on the news and the people mostly shrug their shoulders.

R: 12 / I: 1
Wow, what a brutal, eye opening, reading, God have mercy.

R: 57 / I: 5

I have given up on communism

Last weekend I got totally socially destroyed by people in my orgs with a whole load of lies, emotional appeals, etc. They had secret meetings to talk to a lot of key people to convince them of these lies in advance. They then sprung all of this on a national meeting, throwing me under the bus among borderline rape allegations against friends of mine who arent even members and they never interacted with to any capacity, all in an effort to put their candidate in a light on a platform of "fighting sexism" and take down the opposing candidate in the process.
The party I spend 3+ years of my life in a near full time manner building up, of which i build up the entire chapter from zero to dozens of members, including the people who fucked me over, all of it is taken away from me.
The people in the org were easily swayed by a very obvious plot. Nobody opposed a showtrial without any evidence in which people were attacked by name, despite them not having mentioned any of these issues before to the confidants or the board. People, including those who said they would have my back, didnt dare to intervene.
A moscow trial was conducted in an org of only a little over a hundred people.

If communists are unable to defend and see such snakes and opportunists even at this level, and are so easily swayed, and if even this small a scale is enough to invite full on throwing comrades under the bus for your own gain, then all is lost. The opportunist powerplays that happened in the soviet union are inevitable. Democracy and workers power is an impossibility. The left can never win because it is unable to even have a functioning democracy beyond 150 people without falling to unopposed opportunism.

I am done with politics, i'm going back to my life with people I actually can trust, and im just gonna grill. The Marxist ideal is an illusion, even the smallest level politics gets easily corrupted by opportunists.

R: 9 / I: 2

doomer thread

Nothing good ever happens. The world is run by gleeful genocidal rapists and pedophiles who will always get away with it, 9,999 times out of 10,000. Justice is fleeting and those who carry it out either get brutally suppressed or live to see themselves becoming corrupted by the iron laws of cruel necessity. Evil and pillage always win and the strong rape and murder the weak with no recourse. Hope is cope. Humanity will always be ruled by vicious retards until its extinction, which is approaching. Your oppressed people in Gaza or whatever? Completely exterminated by tasteless dweebs. Your effort to save the world and reorganize it in a sane way? Doomed and fucked forever. Narratives of social progress towards a commonly benevolent society are correct in their aims but we live in the worst possible world. Capitalism will collapse and with it, human society in a final carbon pulse rivaling the Permian extinction across the next few centuries. There will be no moving to space and no technological savior. Technological society is the biosphere exhausting its hydrocarbon resources in the last stages like a star burning iron before it explodes. We will all suffer and die pointlessly choking on the corpses of billions of souls we lit on fire to keep ourselves warm. Prove me wrong.

R: 0 / I: 0
we are so back

R: 10 / I: 1
>Communism is impossible in the West today, even if it lingers on in places like North Korea, academia, and online discourse. The organization of labour into effective groups for political agitation is a remnant of a bygone era; one of mass industrial production, and one in which it was totally normal to be employed at the same job for decades. The proletariat is a largely an illusion in the West, and is rendered all the more so a mirage in countries like the USA where the individual striver is more central to recent history and culture than collective bargaining. People want to escape from the proletariat! Social Democracy remains a strong presence in the West, buttressed by government workers who routinely turn out to vote to continue such policies.

Do you agree with this?

R: 11 / I: 1
>anarchists create a flag
>its just plain black
>because that's their color, black
>it symbolizes no state; it's an anti-flag
alright, cool
>be ancom
>HURR LETS PUT RED ON IT
[repeat as necessary with other anarcho-* variants]

R: 30 / I: 5
Is uzumaki post-left?

R: 3 / I: 0

The revolution has failed, what now?

it's been over since a long time, in fact it's been even more over since then, and in fact have brought us back to the beginning but even worse, what are we supposed to do?

R: 5 / I: 0

Why does communism reject reality

Communism is inherently idealist.
Communism is an unachievable social state.
Marxism is fully idealist in assuming there will be an end to history.
War, war never changes

R: 1 / I: 0
"Hey chinlets,
My name is Jackson, and I hate every single one of you. All of you are fat, retarded, cringelords who spend every second of their day looking at stupid ass pictures. You are everything bad in the world. Honestly, have any of you ever gotten any strange? I mean, I guess it's fun making based of people because of your own insecurities, but you all take to a whole new level. This is even worse than jerking off to videos on tiktok.
Don't be a stranger. Just hit me with your best shot. I'm pretty much the rizzler. I was captain of the football team, and starter on my basketball team. What sports do you play, other than "jack off to drawings of anime girls"? I also get straight A's, and have a banging hot girlfriend (She just ate my ass; Shit was SO skibid). You are all faggits who should just kill yourselves. Thanks for listening.
Pic Related: It's me and my wifey 4 lifey"

R: 1 / I: 0
Marx is a faggot who got nojob, had nomoney, did norevolution, and whose entire collected body of work is essentially the shrieking rage of a bottled-up poorfag made manifest through pseud reasoning which falsely places himself in a movement of history of 'unfair worker exploitation' and that 'if only society wasn't so dang SCREWED UP we'd be happy and doing r-really good ok?????
his ideas are essentially irrelevant to anyone besides incredibly angsty and self-styled intellectual deviant adolescents, who can relate to his angst turned outwards to society, but only because of they don't have pocket change
the grand sweep of history has utterly shattered and swept away his ideas through far superior and eternal recognition of things like the Rights to Property, the basic Dignity of Human Life, Free and Fair Trade and also a far-more mature and sophisticated understanding of "What actually works in the real world and could actually be implemented as opposed to masturbating on dead political economists?"
By the metric of history's currents and impact, Frédéric Bastiat and Alexis de Tocqueville are gigachads whose massive fucking cocks essentially penetrated and impregnated the most fertile of all societies whereas Marx was hanging out with the Trotskyists at the least populated lunch table farthest away from the popular kids. They think themselves superior in their exile but really it's because they look and smell and talk and act like pedantic faggots.

R: 201 / I: 37

Ted Kaczynski is based

So you think you are a worthless NEET? Let's see what uncle Ted has to say:
>The people whose behavior is fairly well under the control of the system are those of the type that might be called “bourgeois.” But there are growing numbers of people who in one way or another are rebels against the system: welfare leeches, youth gangs, cultists, satanists, Nazis, radical environmentalists, militia-men, etc.

NEETs are rebelling against the system! We are part of the rebellion! Ted is based!!!
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-society-and-its-future

R: 29 / I: 2

Why do you believe what you believe?

Genuine question from a none communist/anarchist.
first, I sympathaise with those two ideas, I really do. I have a burning passionate hatred for all the negative aspects of humanity, from greed to sadism.
I'm not very well read on anarchism or communism (the likes of marx and even hegel never interested me), so I'm mostly going by personal observation. from what I understand communists believe that money (capitalism) corrupts the human being and that by removing the cultural meme of capitalism, communism would florish. at least in simple terms, correct?

whenever I engage in chatter about this topic, eventually it comes down to human nature. almost all far leftists believe some form of the blank-slate. I don't. I never understood why this idea is taken seriously at all. isn't it obvious that a lot of human bias is hardwired into us from birth rather than influnced by enviornent?
especially the more basal desires and behaviours like greed? do you really believe that money is what corrupts people rather than that they're born greedy? and if you're a communist/anarchist that doesn't blieve in the blankslate, how do justify what you believe?

R: 2 / I: 0
>be born
>parents fuck you up
>unable to grow into an independent adult due to fuck up
>society demands you pull yourself by your bootsraps
what the fuck is this bullshit? no wonder there are so many mass shooters out there.

R: 19 / I: 2

To the idiot liberals of "/leftypol/"

Ahem

Marxism has no reality at all in the West. Nearly all self-proclaimed Marxists are frauds who haven’t even read Marx, let alone understand him. They use the label Marxism, despite knowing nothing about it, as a pseudo-intellectual obfuscation for their liberal ideology. To begin, what is Marxism? Marxism is not a theory of equality. It is not a diagnosis of injustice, nor is it a specific prescription of how to remedy society’s ills. Marxism is a method for acquiring knowledge about the laws governing the historical development of societies. Marxism thus regards itself as a type of science. Most people think of science as something purely descriptive. But the reason Marx’s contemporaries called him Prometheus is because he bequeathed a science that did not just describe reality, but participated in its development. This makes Marxism totally contrary to modern science. Modern science places knowledge above its object. To know, means to strip something naked to consciousness and turn it into a utility for the knowing subject. He who knows an object, can control, master, and alter an object. But the ‘object’ known by Marxism is none other than human society itself. And the paradox lies in the obvious fact that society is not just an object, but also a subject. Marxists (subjects) are themselves part of the very object they make knowable. To complicate matters further, Marx does not claim knowledge of society alone can transform society. Instead, he proves that society is already coming to know and transform itself materially in the form of the then growing proletarian class. Most people think Marx is ‘Promethean’ because he wanted his ideas popularized. But the REAL reason was because he had the courage of declaring the return of knowledge back to being itself, and human beings in particular. He created a science that ceased to be above its object. For Marx, the knowledge of historical laws arrived at by consciousness, was being reflected in history itself. Knowledge of humanity does not dominate humanity, but reveals that it was there, and part of it all along. “Communism is the riddle of history solved.” Why the need for class consciousness? This is where people misunderstand Leninism as an attempt to turn politics and state power into a tool for realizing some goal of the mind. In reality, the role of Marxists lies in spreading the ‘good news’ to the despairing proletariat. Class consciousness, the so-called ‘vanguard party,’ and the Communist state is the realization of the proletariat’s faith in itself. Communism is not realized ‘automatically’ without the participation of a Communist party because society is not just an object. Neither just a subject either. Communist parties do not create new societies, only guide the existing development of society. This guidance is necessary because politics, Communist or otherwise is itself part of material reality. Without the guidance of proletarian consciousness, the movement propelling society still continues. But it leads to an economic, political, spiritual, moral and overall social crisis. Society eats away at itself as it cannot make sense of the contradictions driving it. The crisis of Western Marxism lies in its inability to overcome the subject/object distinction when it comes to society. How can society both be a real (material) object, while also given the quality of subjective responsibility? Two responses emerge: The first cope of Western Marxism is a type of fatalism, which Lenin calls economism. According to this view, politics is not involved in the revolutionary transformation of society at all, which happens only because of economics, or a spontaneous uprising of the proletariat. The second (more relevant) is the opposite extreme. In this view, society must act as a pure subject in the form of institutions (party or otherwise), exterminating every trace of its pre-conscious, and objective material being, recreating all society from scratch. But both two sides of Western Marxism are incompatible with Marx’s Promethean gesture of suspending knowledge back to being. In the first, being is upheld entirely independent of knowledge. In the second, knowledge is asserted over and at the expense of being. If society will become communist independently of the engaged subjective partisanship of communists, then all you have is the conceit of some subject-in-the-know passively watching their object fulfill the expectations of subjective knowledge. If communism is just some enlightened consciousness, then what you have are psychotic subjects devoid of any trust that their knowledge is actually based in (non-conscious) reality itself, denouncing the latter as ‘reactionary.’ Knowledge only as ‘subjective self-consciousness.’ The ‘praxis’ uniting thought and practice then is only in the fractal movement of subjective self-consciousness - voluntary ‘action’ becomes the ‘object’ of the subject, who then acts on its basis: ‘object’ takes on the processual quality of yet-to-be fulfilled subjectivity. This is exactly why @conceptualjames places Marxism in the Gnostic tradition: This Western interpretation of Marxism is founded upon a metaphysical distrust for reality. Because of that distrust, good, virtue, etc. lies only in knowledge as pure subjective self-consciousness. This Western Marxism has its origins in the neo-Kantian György Lukács, whose seminal work “History and Class Consciousness” was written to resolve the problem the subject/object distinction posed for the Marxist concept of society, class & history. In order to begin, Lukács engaged in an egregious form of revisionism; blaming for Marxism’s commitment to natural realism Fredrich Engels and his "dialectics of nature."23 To Lukács, when Marx referred to objective material reality, he was merely opposing society as a supra-individual horizon of meaning to individual subjectivity. It did not include objective natural reality, which Lukács brackets as irrelevant to Marxism. Society was ‘objective,’ and consciousness was ‘subjective.’ Their dialectical interaction, for Lukács, was the basis of history itself. But the material reality outside of social mediation (nature) was irrelevant to, and outside this dialectic, outside history. The reason I mention Lukács is because Western Marxism was founded on the false view that he resolved the problem of ‘subject/object’ distinction for Marxism. But he did nothing of that sort, he just changed the definition of objectivity to exclude objective reality itself. Here, objectivity is just the reified totality of social relations, denied of active subjective responsibility. This obviously contradicts Marx’s materialism, for which objectivity does include nature, not just society as some purely transcendental horizon. Without including nature in the definition of material reality, then class-consciousness consists in dissolving all society, in all its objectivity, into a pure subjective self-consciousness. For Lukács, the proletarian class is the first ‘subject-object’ which does exactly this. This is a gross perversion of Marxism, and it is easy to see the lineage of the Lukácsian view in the Frankfurt School, the New Left, ‘postmodern academia,’ gender studies in Wokeism as a whole. But is Lukácsian Western Marxism really to blame? In fact, when Lukács decided to reject Engels, he was just compromising with institutional modern realism. Engels ‘dialectics of nature’ was too ‘metaphysical’ because it saw something ‘human’ in reality. In other words, the opposite of a metaphysical distrust in reality! In other words, James Lindsay is a fucking moron when he blames wokeism’s metaphysical distrust in reality on Marxism. In actual fact, the distrust in reality is the very basis of bourgeois modernity. It can be thought as the entire premise of the Age of Enlightenment itself In the realm of science: Metaphysical distrust in reality takes the form of distrust in our conventions, intuitions, religious beliefs, and sensibilities about the nature of reality. Reality is a pure OUTSIDE only accessed by cold, indifferent, impersonal inquiry. In the realm of politics: Metaphysical distrust in reality takes the form of distrust in traditional sovereign authority, regarding it as unjust, arbitrary, and tyrannical. Sovereigns must be legitimated by some explicitly abstract constitutional or democratic procedure. Wokeness is just the applying it to the realm of culture, where the unwritten norms of civilization secretly disguise relationships of injustice, oppression, and marginalization - by virtue of not being premised by expressly consensual, rational, etc. consciousness. In bourgeois modernity, only what is in the sphere of explicit responsibility of conscious subjects can be ‘trusted.’ Any recognition of humanity in reality itself is no different than a superstition: Reality is arbitrary, meaningless, and malign. Only institutions are Good. The madness of bourgeois capitalism, which alienates mankind from its material being, is the true culprit behind the Woke phenomena, NOT Marxism. All Lukács did was make Marxism compatible with bourgeois institutions. The original problem is the bourgeoisie itself. The Gnostic, occultist, and alchemical origins of the bourgeois enlightenment are abundantly clear. Lindsay accuses of Marxism, what is in fact THE FOUNDATION OF LIBERALISM! Marxism is the exact OPPOSITE of this bourgeois conceit of knowledge (gnosis), formalism, and wokeness In Marxism, the highest aim of knowledge is to give way to reality. This entails a great trust in material being - anything of importance arrived at by knowledge, is already reconciled within material reality itself. The paradox is that this ‘giving way’ is a necessary act of consciousness. Lukács’ response to this paradox revised Marxism itself. But even if Lukács were to be rejected, the problem remains. Furthermore, what is really the problem with Lukács’s revision, anyway? Exploring that reveals the way to a better solution. As we have shown, the idea of communism as a pure subjective self-consciousness, is based on the notion that objectivity is just reified social relations. This naturally begs the question of what the content of these social relations consists in, as so far they are only pure form Marxism is historical materialism, and Communism is just the practical application of historical materialism, via the class-conscious (historical-materialism conscious) proletariat, to society itself. But what does that say about the nature of society in the first place? It means society is an indescribable ‘totality’ of individual mental states, opinions, and beliefs, - the objectivity of social relationships, is merely a result of the subjective mind ‘reifying’ segments of the totality and treating them as external realities in themselves. Thus here, society has no real determinate content - it is a pure ‘Kantian Thing-in-Itself,’ a mere totality of individual relations that only asserts its existence negatively, via the reification (‘objectivization’) of its constituent parts. This means that material relations of production are rooted in reified mental states, not material reality. Consciousness of them (plus action) would dissolve them. Material society is then defined by ‘that which subjective consciousness has not yet assumed responsibility for!’ Having rejected any specific form of being as *necessarily* material, including nature, it is only upon failing to render the Totality fully transparent that consciousness may renunciate its aspiration to dissolve everything in itself. Totality is the Lukácsian sublime. The Totality of individual relations in the form of History, or Society, constitutes a type of absolute objectivity which is not merely a reification - but the free, continuous and holistic content of every possible experience, mental state, and subjectivity. A totality cannot assume self-consciousness, since it cannot be confined to any one self. So that is simply the end of Scientific Socialism: The only thing that can really be known about society, is that nothing at all can be known. This is no more knowledge than Kant’s Thing. Subject-Object distinction reemerges, only now between a subjective self-consciousness (in the form of Party, institutions, etc) rendering transparent and assuming responsibility for all determinations of society and the Totality of relations as the supremely impenetrable object. So we are back to square one, and none wiser in answering: 1. To what extent is society (including all relations of production) itself objective? 2. To what extent is Communism merely a subjective consciousness? These are the most fundamental questions of Western Marxism I place special emphasis on Western Marxism, since these questions are obvious within the framework of the experience of Marxism-Leninism. There, the question of the objectivity of society, and Communism, were answered practically: In the Soviet Avant-Garde and in the GPCR. Both of these events ran upon the objective limits of their underlying aspirations, and the wisdom of Marxism-Leninism - whether in Socialism in One Country or in Deng Xiaopings Reform and Opening Up - defined itself in relation to that experience. Moreover, Marxism-Leninism is defined within the context of countries where the question of society and the individual is resolved in the concrete bonds of civilization, bonds which were never questioned even at the height of revolutionary experimentation. In the comparatively atomized West, it is not at all clear to people to what extent society is objective, or to what extent ideas are subjective, even outside Marxist theory. Modern Western thinking doubts absolutely everything about society, even the definition of gender. The very distinction between subject and object itself is not at all clear in Western society, which is extremely sensitive to algorithmically-driven shifts in culture. Even scientific consensus is (rightfully) called into question, while expert opinion disguises itself as fact. In contrast to Lukács notion of reification, the real problem with the subject-object distinction cannot but appear to be rooted in the notion of objective Being implied by it, as totally purified of human quality. Despite that in reality, all objects appear somehow tainted by it When the thinking consciousness is entirely divided from reality, as pure spirit, soul, mind, or cogito - what remains of reality is completely meaningless, and devoid of any moral, historical, spiritual, or human significance. How could that square with Marx’s view bellow? Marxists as early as Plekhanov have also opted for regressing into Spinozism as a means to resolve the problem, where subject and object collapse into the supreme Substance. In this way thinking consciousness is the mere attribute of Substance: the most fundamental form of Being. Soviet Philosopher Ilyenkov, goes so far as to draw out speculative cosmological implications of this view, according to which thought arises as a necessary attribute of matter to prevent the heat death of the universe, by initiating a conscious cosmic catastrophe to reset it. The problem with Spinozism is not the view that mind and matter (‘subject and object’) share reality, but in the notion of reality as ‘Substance:’ a metaphysical view of the object already united with its subjective determinations. Substance thus has no stake in its attributes. This is just one of the ways of ‘resolving’ the problem by denying it all together: Substance is mere objectivity given Form by the mind. Substance is treated as supreme, antecedent, and given, but it is the repository of a dogmatic subjective determination, not true objectivity. The Marxist-Spinozist view cannot ground the origins of proletarian consciousness, Marxism, and the Communist party in reality - it represses its own origins, and pretends these arise in perfect continuity with the self-same Substance, effectively gaslighting itself. This view does not arise from any necessary procedure of thought, experience, or relation to the world. It is a metaphysical view that does not pay for itself in any way - it is an insight that cannot itself be reproduced materially, a pure dogmatism of the mind. There never comes the decisive gesture of Marx of renouncing knowledge to suspend it back into Being - Substance is the conceit of a knowledge that already inheres in Being, perfectly continuous with the intellect which at no point runs upon the limit of its pretentions. In practice, it becomes a type of ideological hubris, asserting the unreality and meaninglessness of every actually substantive bond of civilization, in favor of a supreme ‘Substance’ that has neither any skin of its own in the game, nor any reality outside a calcified intellect. More importantly, it renders Scientific Socialism into a metaphysical dogma, incapable of deriving concrete knowledge of concrete social reality. No specificity of societal objectivity is possible - everything is just ‘capitalism’ permeating the whole of its ‘attributes.’ It is obvious that if ‘everything’ is objective, then nothing in particular is, including society itself. The extent of society’s objectivity is the extent it is continuous with a dogma of the mind. It is no wonder Spinoza is the favorite thinker of pseudo-Marxist academia! Spinozism is categorically incompatible with Marxism for no other reason than that its foundations make impossible insight into laws governing historical development, and the particular qualitative character of societies. It could not possibly constitute any class-consciousness. Specifically, it cannot afford any recognition of the objectivity of contradictions (such as the class struggle). In the stead of the objectivity of class struggle lies a pure subjectivist ‘will to immanence,’ a notion of communism as antisocial as Lukácsian “self-consciousness.” The scholastic concept Substance does not resolve the object-subject distinction (the principal theoretical problem of Western Marxism), but only conceals it. For the 100+ years Western Marxism has confused it with Marx’s materialism, Marxism was condemned metaphysical languish. It suffices only to recall Marx’s own apt view of Spinoza: A metaphysically disguised objectivity which excludes the objectivity of man, and therefore the socius relevant for Marx’s own materialism. Marxism succeeded in overcoming metaphysics, but only within a limited scope of practice. That is namely in the investigations of Marx in Capital, the writings of Fredrich Engels and the concrete historical experience of Marxism-Leninism. Marx and Engels failed to fully transmit their theoretical genius. Lenin alone inherited it, and gave it practical reality. The genius of Marxism survived as the genius of world-historical statesmen and civilizations, but its original spark of consciousness was lost. Marxism-Leninism emerged as a type of phronesis, whose advanced outlook was established by the context of the concrete historical experience of Communism. Not strictly a matter of theoretical intellect, but also a type of advanced sensibility based on practical reality. Marx’s Promethean gesture acquired objective reality and history exclusively outside the West, where objectivity of society was not metaphysical question, but a given reality. And the problem of metaphysics permeated the whole of Western thinking, not just Western Marxism. For Marxism to be meaningful in the West, it cannot ignore this problem, for when it does, it always remains trapped within it anyway, inevitably regressing materialist objectivity from practical Scientific Socialism into the scholastic Kantian or Spinozist frame. In the case of Kantianism (as in Lukács), proletarian objectivity dissolves in the subjectivism of social-dem institutions. In Spinozism, it becomes an intellectual conceit devoid of skin in the game. Revisionism, opportunism, and defeatism are the certain conclusion of both. The object in the form of ‘capitalism’ - whether as Thing or Substance - becomes so overwhelming and insurmountable, that the comparative weakness of Marxist subjectivity takes in. The paranoiac spectre of ‘fascism’ reflects a consciousness always in retreat before its object. And hardly anything could affirm that paranoia more than the fact that the thinker who finally initiated the revolution that would emancipate the Western mind from bourgeois metaphysics once and for all, is nearly equally infamous for their affiliation to German Nazism. Originally a student of Husserl and the phenomenological school, Martin Heidegger inadvertently lays the foundation for a complete rediscovery of Marx, emancipating Western thought from its metaphysical shackles and opening the way for a truly consistent materialist outlook. Heidegger elects to orient thought to an origin more fundamental than can be contained within the frame of the reductionist ‘res cogitans/'extensa’ or ‘subject/object’ distinction, and that is toward Being as such. This is the beginning of what is popularly called ontology. For Heidegger, Being as such pre-exists the classification, categorization, utilization, etc. of particular beings by thought. It is the ‘Being of beings’ - the more fundamental ground by which particular beings are given to us - whether in experience, contemplation, or practice. He calls the difference between Being & beings the Ontological Difference. Every relation to beings, is based on a fundamental horizon of Being as such. When a specific horizon acquires historical dominance, it is metaphysical - imposing upon Being a specific relation by thought. The view of the thinking being is set on a foundation far less metaphysically loaded than the Cartesian Subject: as Dasein, a being for which there is a question or openness of Being. Dasein embodies the very discontinuity of Being that justifies the Ontological Difference. The problem with the subject-object distinction is that it can only regard beings as objects for a given subject. This makes for a notion of objectivity that is a priori idealist. The notion of Subject also implies a specific view of objects as mere utilities for its realization. Subject, moreover, defined as res cogita, is thought itself taken as its own real object. This implies an alienation of thought from reality, foreclosing its scandalous incipience in Being. This notion is the final conclusion of idealism; for Heidegger metaphysics as such. Marx already accomplished the rejection of the culmination of idealist philosophy, especially in his early writings. But the incipient materialist language he made use of (man, class, mode of production, etc.), later fell victim to inevitably metaphysical conceptualizations. Some of these Concepts were involved in the first breakdown of European Marxism itself. The changing nature of capitalist production & role of the proletariat ceased to neatly conform to their Concept, and this was used by Social Democracy to justify its revisionism. Western Marxism, with its conceptualist orthodoxy, became infiltrated by metaphysics, so it is natural that only a Western thinker entirely outside Marxism - and even entirely opposed to it politically - could initiate the emancipation of Western thought from metaphysics. Heidegger may have been beset by various idealistic and politically objectionable peculiarities, but these do not define his primary historical significance. His primary significance lies in setting all thought on a basis which asserts its posteriority in the face of Being. The concept of Dasein helps resolve the fundamental problem of Marxist theory: The Subject/Object paradox and its methodological individualism. For the first time, society, classes, and civilizations can be acknowledged as real in a manner consistent with the materialist view. Dasein does not necessarily afford contemplation exclusive significance in its overall issue of Being, so it is not just another concept of the subject: Not simply cognition, but practically being-in-the-world, facing the constitutive disjuncture with Being in its very Being. This overall phenomenological orientation permits thought to acknowledge reality without preemptively attempting to assume the consequences or implications it has for the thinking being. Whatever consequences or implications there may be, they begin with being, not thought. It is undoubtedly possible that Dasein can be conceived exclusively as an individual, but unlike the concept of the Subject, it is not necessarily so. Being as such is a common well-spring that cuts across individuated ‘subjects,’ and is the staging ground of any shared reality. Moreover, without acknowledging the incipience of thought from more fundamental Being, Marxist materialism becomes an absurdity: Materiality becomes identical to the thought of materiality (like Substance), and thus an idea! In this way, materialism easily becomes idealism. Dasein is constitutively a being already thrown in a world, a world not only not of its choosing, but whose givenness, in the form of beings, cannot be pre-emptively defined by thoughts, ideas or concepts. It rather rests upon a relation to Being as such, which can only be uncovered. The real individual is thus set against a background within which their very individuated identity is subordinated to a more fundamental horizon of Being. Dasein, in its incipience, knows no distinction between individuals, or itself and others. It is not even a collective Typically, Marxists try to resolve antinomy of sociality (either the sum-total of individual subjects or a collective subject individuals are part of) by just grotesquely defining it as a ‘complex’ of relationships between individuals, too numerous to ground in anything definite. The concept of Dasein, properly speaking, does not necessarily even imply individuated identity, let alone a grouping of individuals - but a more fundamental and antecedent background from which individuals acquire distinction, place and identity within a world. The simultaneous quality of being open to Being, while also itself Being, implies Dasein as an incipience of thought that goes from the question of a subject faced with its object, to a quality of the ‘object’ itself, as originally discontinuous with regard to itself. A Dasein is already immersed within a world, and is a grounded existence while simultaneously corresponding to an openness of Being at issue with, or at least discontinuous with that existence. Yet said Being is nothing more than the very Being of Dasein itself. This ontological difference (between a world of beings and Being as such) is not antagonistic, since Being merely discloses itself, implying not that it is at odds with the world, only given privileged significance in the way it reveals itself to Dasein, in contrast to beings. Particular beings acquire definition in their use, or general significance, but their real meaning is always metonymic, always referring to something more fundamental than themselves: Being as such is thus also the ultimate horizon of meaningfulness to which beings are referred. The definition of a Dasein itself, lies at the point in which it faces the threshold beyond which it cannot cross, simultaneously defining the whole of what it is. Typically understood as a person’s death, but more importantly that within which Dasein may recognize its finitude. That is necessarily beyond any particular being; even individual ego. Being as such grounds the finitude of Dasein, and meaningfulness arises not simply in the physical death of a person, but in Being itself, so far as it sets upon the limits of its disclosure to a given Dasein. Heidegger’s shortcoming lies in the ambiguity of Dasein. While Dasein is thrown into a given community, as an established horizon of being, it acquires an authentic relationship to Being only through the exercise of individual will, where it comes to acknowledge its finitude. Yet at the same time, the community is the very ground of Dasein, since ones relation toward others constitutes a given conventionally established horizon of being. What remains ambiguous is the antisocial status of the Being which discloses itself to Dasein. Experiencing finitude is necessarily individual, yet the status of the finitude of Being itself is not clear. This is heightened by the fact that for Heidegger, every determinacy of Being is metaphysical, closing the Ontological difference by reducing Being to a particular being. Though, Heidegger does not make clear how it is community acquires singularity of being, he grounds phenomenological Being the site of its conceivability, freeing it from the methodological individualism of intersubjectivity: and that is his principal achievement for Marxism. As shown, without the aid of Heidegger, Marxism inevitably regresses into metaphysics. But paradoxically, Heidegger’s understanding of metaphysics is the very chief defect of his outlook, not only condemning it to stagnation on his part, but placing it at risk of idealism. Heidegger makes no distinction, in his understanding of metaphysics, between Being in the specificity of its determination, and Being in the specificity of its understanding within the history of philosophy. He extends the label ‘metaphysics’ beyond the realm of thought. For him, metaphysics is an actuality. Thus, industrial capitalist modernity is itself the result of metaphysics and it is implied: a consequence of the history of philosophy. Obviously from an elementary Marxist, or even commonsense perspective, he gets the whole thing backwards. To understand how Being itself acquires a specific determination, it suffices to return to the ontological difference between Being and particular beings. Heidegger situates this difference at the core of Dasein’s existential turmoil, for which Being is always at issue. This quandary, while not identical, at least parallels that of Kant, for whom the transcendental subject is likewise situated between the antinomies. So it suffices to ‘in parallel’ look to Hegel for the solution, and transpose the difference as a difference of Being itself. That is to say, the ontological difference should change the operative notion of Being in the first place, from its one-sided conception mired in the stillness of thought, to an understanding of Being as itself contradiction, difference, etc. in sum, a dialectical union of contraries. Thus Being as such acquires determinacy as an absolute ontological union of opposites, transposing the difference at the core of Dasein to a feature of Being itself. That there exists Dasein in the first place should change something about our understanding of Being itself. Yet in contrast to Hegel, it is not necessary to draw the conclusion that thought comprises the essential element in the contradiction at the heart of Being - The misstep of phenomenological Hegelians from Kojeve to Žižek, who regressed from Heidegger’s original achievement. The important conclusion is that ontology - taken not as a philosophical contemplation, but the real threshold by which mankind relates to Being as such - is itself actively suspended and itself reproduced within material reality, as the formative ground of all thought. This threshold lies not in the limits of philosophy, but in the limits of man’s existence itself, itself suspended in temporal history. Such a limit lies not in the threshold of man’s mastery over nature, but the limit by which man lives, relates to others and to things. Such a limit is not preempted by any philosophy, idea, or consciousness, but the genuine limit of man’s existence in relation to the whole of Being, conditioned not necessarily by physical limitation, but by the limit of the absolute contradiction which forms meaning itself. This can be understood as the contradiction between the givenness of being and Being as such, or between the determinate norms of civilization and their unity in a state authority, a specific frame of past and future, particular and universal, many and one, etc. Heidegger (at least in his early years) could not see that Dasein is not just a being for whom there is a question of Being - but also a being for whom that question is already resolved in a specific way. Heidegger assumed that resolution was necessarily metaphysical. While true for the history of philosophy, it is not true for living and real mankind, for whom the contradiction between the determinacy of Being and an appreciation for the ontological, is the very content of the latter. It is what gives Being itself meaning! The absolute contradiction is a contradiction of incipience, between determination and origins. The contingency of Dasein is not simply a matter of choice, as Heidegger thought, but in a determination whose ‘reason’ is only clear retroactively, like a wavefunction collapse. A civilization is the way it is, not because it is physically impossible for it to be any other way, but precisely because it is physically possible. Only by assuming one determination against a background of many, can a higher reason participate in the development of a people. Western Marxism, before it engages in ‘historical materialist’ analysis, projects a vulgar metaphysical view (rejected by Marx & Engels) of humanity, according to which mankind dwells at the precipice of physical extinction. Thus, everything about society is reduced to survival. Hence, class struggle ultimately reduces to the Rational Choice Individual, and one group merely finds itself disadvantaged with regard to others, on account of being unable to fulfill the desires, or restricting the choices of individuals. What is problematic about this is clear It clearly contrasts with the Marxist view of class struggle, which situates class antagonism within a single division of labor, as a contradiction at the core of being itself - giving it ontological significance, rather than a result of clashing individuals. Understanding any given civilization, is simply a matter of understanding the mode of production. The problem is they never bother to ask exactly what is being produced in the first place. They begin and end with the individual, effectively arriving at no real knowledge at all. The problem of course is that the individual is situated within a more fundamental horizon by which they relate to others, to things, etc. This jibber-jabber is well-known to ‘Marxists,’ but precisely what is meant by it, at the objective material level they never make clear. A mode of production is the mode by which something is reproduced; that something can’t just be the individual. For a mode of production to be general, it must itself have a general object, otherwise the entire concept becomes completely useless. To begin, this object - which is really the specific Being of Dasein - must be a specific logic of reproduction. You could call it a unit of civilization, or a division of labor. Marxoids have devoted an eternity of soliloquies to Capital as a logic of reproduction. Capital, whose logic is standardization, abstraction, and utilitarianism is not a specific logic, but an empty universalism, which concludes with modern American ‘civilisation,’ and now a mere extension of Church of Cartesian metaphysics (govt, financial institutions etc). M-C-M’ is merely the form of reproduction of the modern European polity; the abstraction of the commodity form corresponding to the abstraction of the state. Capital is not an autonomous process, but a civilizational quandary. A deeper object has precedence over it. In a sense, Heidegger is right that ontology here possesses primacy. Before there was capitalism, there was a more fundamental way European civilization came to relate to Being as a whole. That is not to say the latter is arbitrary - on the contrary, it is world-historical. The point is that in contrast to the vulgar materialist view, all of mankind’s ‘metaphysical,’ spiritual, cultural, scientific, etc. questions, aspirations, fears and dreams were bound up with the development of capitalism, reflecting their highest relation to Being as such. To know a logic of reproduction, is to know what is most sacred, fundamental, and ontological for a given people. No abstract, mechanical geometrical, or arithmetic conception of physical production suffices to produce knowledge of any given mode of production. It is clear that Heidegger, though providing the foundation for a Marxism freed from metaphysics, hardly allows us to go this far with the concept of Dasein. But at the very least, with the help of Hegel, it is possible to grasp ontological difference as a feature of Being itself That is the second most important step to arriving at a true conception of the objectivity of society, after Heidegger’s phenomenological turn itself. That is because it establishes Being as a specific contradiction, thus having some kind of finitude beyond individual death. This does not yet tell us anything particular about any specific Dasein. For that to be possible, it is necessary to take a fundamental step beyond Heidegger and beyond the West itself. Heidegger gave us an escape from metaphysics - but not a perspective already outside of it. It was Aleksandr Dugin who accomplished the particularization of Heidegger’s concept of Dasein, thus allowing for it to be put to work in productive, even practical ways. And he does this by returning to the beginning of metaphysics according to Heidegger - in Logos Logos is the first forgetting of Being, in the form of Being as the identity of difference. Whereas Heidegger identifies Being with Time, Heraclitus identified Being as change and constant flux, and thus an identity of difference itself. The beginning of Western philosophy. Dugin, rather than languish in the melodrama of the long forgetting of Being, employs Logos as a productive concept: As the logic of a given civilization’s existence, defining its particular Dasein, or ontology. This analysis is only superficially idealist, but not necessarily. Dugin claims to reject materialism as a whole. Yet only his language is metaphysical: what he describes is nothing other than the metaphysically-concealed communal being which is the premise of any application of Scientific Socialism. The kernel of his thinking is materialist. Logos is the revealed form of Dasein, cleansing Heidegger of any traces of potential subjectivism and, in a properly Hegelian manner, transposing the ontological difference itself into a determinate object. Active geopolitical analysis can then replace impotent contemplation. Dugin offers Space as a proper counterpart to Heideggerean Time, because he does not mind being ‘metaphysical,’ in the sense of grounding Being in specificity. But from a materialist perspective, going from the general to the particular is the opposite of metaphysical. Dugin is necessary for Marxism, because without specifying the communal being which is the premise of Scientific Socialism, it not only regresses into metaphysics (and cannot draw any particular insights), it becomes a cheap extension of American unipolar liberalism. Dugin may give expression to this social being in an overtly metaphysical way, but that is just halloween dressing. The important thing is that he delimits it as the very ground of thought itself, fulfilling the logic of Marxist-Leninist dialectics, beginning from the particular. Socialism in One Country reflected the precise logic that universal Communism can only be built up within a determinate communal being, not a vain pretension to the entire world, but a concrete, grounded relationship between a specific party and a specific country. Dugin’s geopolitical orientation allows for an understanding of the objectivity of civilizations beyond the formalism of statehood - states only exist to the extent that they can reflect the underlying logos of a civilization, reflected in its geography. For Dugin, the logos acquires particularity (beyond the mere identity of difference) where it establishes a particular logic relating one to many, identity and difference, being and becoming, stasis and flux, universal and particular, central authority and local community, etc Logos is stamped by a particular logic of how it relates to its own incipience, how it excludes nothingness, how a people relate to their own constitutive origins, by what means they relate to a universality, what specific limit defines their existence. The logos of civilization easily translates in Marxist terms into a specific logic of communal reproduction, which itself would mean nothing without acknowledging the primacy of ‘ontology’ - at least taken to mean the way in which mankind reproduces the conditions of Form. With Dugin, knowledge can only be derived from the ground-up: every metaphysical, noetic, even psychological assumption is suspended and imperiled phenomenally - not a single conceit of the mind can be idle in the investigation of civilizations and geopolitics. What accounts for a great deal of Dugin’s mysticism is the phenomenalization of the active intellect, which must cross beyond itself and into its real material premises, where only a language of the sublime can suffice to give expression to its objective limitations. Importantly, these limitations are put to work for Dugin - the limits of metaphysics are immanent limits of logos itself, thus enabling a positive a positive analysis and investigation of different civilizations, rather than just understanding them in terms of their differences. This brings us to what is by far the most important contribution of Dugin, and which permits him to be characterized as a true metaphysical materialist, going beyond even Heidegger - and that is in Dugin’s concept of Chaos, the true the phenomenal form of material being. Whereas Heidegger understands in Heraclitus the beginning of Being’s oblivion, Dugin identifies at the precise incipience of Logos a dark counterpart to it - that is chaos. Chaos is not randomness, nor meaninglessness. It is really the antecedent density of material being. In contrast to the exclusive principle of Logos, based on differentiation, identity - which defines itself in contrast to the void of nothingness - chaos is an inclusive principle. It is a dark shadow of logos, corresponding to Being that it has forgotten, but which follows it. Whereas Chaos is ‘Nothing’ to the Logos (or the intellect), it is in reality something. What is this if not a precise materialist view, which asserts the primacy and antecedence of a reality which cannot ever be reduced to any product of the mind? As an inclusive principle, Logos is included within Chaos, as one of its possibilities. This reflects the history of the ‘Asiatic’ Empires, which never seem to annihilate any aspect of their being (including the conquered), but only include, and aggregate in a higher form. Chaos is a type of index of Dasein’s development, which cannot be conditioned by the forms of Being it gives rise to. It is the inert density, and eternity of material being faced by the intellect, which extends infinitely into the past, assailing its development into one Whole. This bears an obvious similarity to Solovyov’s Sophiology, which identifies the feminine divine wisdom as a fourth hypostasis of the trinity. Sophia is the Whole body of universal humanity - the infinite past of infinite divine wisdom of the accumulated history of all mankind. It is in this way that Dugin renders any Heideggerean accusation of metaphysics superfluous - for Being as such is always remembered in the positive concept of Chaos, which always subsumes Logos - a kind of parallel to the Russian relationship to European modernity. Chaos affirms that every Logos, every revealed form of Dasein or communal being, is haunted by a more fundamental material ground of existence, which has given rise to it as one of its many possibilities. This tension between Logos and Chaos is the real absolute contradiction. Translated in materialist terms, civilizations acquire objectivity not because of some static metaphysical quality (like genes), but because their determination reflects an active dialectic at the heart of material being itself. Objectivity is that which realizes a contradiction. The dialectic in question concerns the incipience of what Ilyenkov called the ‘thinking consciousness’ - which is really more like Dasein - from its opposite in material being. This contradiction is itself real (and the only real thing), and not just an illusion of our finitude. For Dugin, the concept of Chaos is reflects the inert reality of that contradiction, accumulated in all its forms, unaltered but inclusive of all possibilities. This makes for a materialism surprisingly similar to the Spinozist kind, rendering Logos a kind of attribute of Chaos… The proper counterpart of the concept of Chaos is the Lacanian ‘non-all.’ Because it precedes differentiation itself, it is ‘all,’ only, not ‘all’ as the sum-total of beings. It is ‘everything,’ but reflects the incompleteness of ‘everything’ by not to be any one form of it. The problem of the concept of Chaos and by extension Dugin’s notion of Logos is that it is still too metaphysical. It is one-sided materialism, where chaos is never truly, absolutely, and fully, imperiled in its determinations. This gives rise to a type of ‘pluralism’ in Dugin. The pluralism of different Dasein, and different Logos, is Dugin’s greatest achievement, but also his greatest weakness: Because it is undercut by an unconditionally singular concept of Chaos, which is the condition of this pluralism. Somewhat similar to Spinoza’s Substance. Dugin escapes too easily the fact of a world-historical and global ‘ontological division of labor’ by humanity. It is hardly conceivable to understand Russian logos, without also including its relation and response to the European kind. The common fate of humanity is inescapable. While Dugin is right to reject globalism, with its imposition of one ontic vision of humanity, without a shared humanity, the internal reality and development of different civilizations lose their own ground of meaning. Certainty of ones fate is certain impossibility. By this it is meant that, while a given civilization can certainly come to appreciate and acknowledge its ‘logos,’ it cannot confuse this as the final horizon of Being itself - at minimum, it must rather regard any new disclosure of Being as capable of including it. Because of this, a civilization cannot recognize its own humanity without recognizing the humanity of others - since, at the level of incipient Dasein - ones own particular Being is actively suspended in the future oriented phenomenal disclosure, known only retroactively. What this means is that at least on a minimal level, all civilizations of mankind share a single ontological plane, and even historical rationality (Hegel), on account of this necessary mutual recognition on the basis of openness of fate. While Dasein can be particularized, its constitutive lack of certain knowledge about what will enter its own phenomenal horizon is universal, and the same good faith a Dasein must constitutively afford for itself that it is human, it must afford for other civilizations. This is all that humanism in Marxism amounts to: not a specific ontic view of the human elevated above reality, but a recognition of the human as that to which every knowledge returns: Only the return of an outlook, thought, etc. to its real premises, reconciles it as a being. Within Marxism-Leninism (and originally consistent with Marx), lies a sophianic view of knowledge, which is neither scholastic nor based in technological domination. Persons like Stalin and Mao had the sage-like quality of knowledge in the form of wisdom. This type of knowledge does not elevate itself above its object, but is like the Hegelian absolute knowledge, corresponding to it absolutely. In this view, knowledge of civilization does not give rise to the occasion of ‘changing’ it by premising it on the basis of consciousness. To know a thing does not always mean to possess mastery of it - to know a thing also corresponds to insight into the limit by which that thing is a necessary and rational existence. This is true for nature in the era of ecology, but it is even more true for civilizations. Communist consciousness does NOT entail the voluntary transformation of society. It entails knowledge in the form of wisdom, of the laws guiding the development of society, and this consciousness intervenes in reality only at the site of the latter’s objective contradictions. The organic development of communal being, and society, is not premised by voluntary consciousness - but by the generational wisdom that allows people to make sense of their place in the world, and their relations toward others. No ‘conscious’ conceit could possibly replace that. Societies and civilizations change - but they do not change according to the whims of consciousness. They change according to what organically makes sense to people, in ways that are compatible with their living being, and their specific logic of reproduction. The application of ‘human rights’ to the sphere of culture, is the highpoint of madness of bourgeois civilization, which is beginning to consume its own human premises. No interiority of grounded life, with its own internal logical and rational development is any longer possible. Wokeness has nothing to do with the Marxist outlook. You can BULLSHIT all you want by referencing academic bullshit. In China, there is no wokeness. In the Soviet Union, there was no wokeness. Their cultural reforms they did have had NOTHING in common with it. A logic of reproduction develops on its own terms, and only in ways that are compatible with the reproduction of units of civilization itself. Hierarchy of respect, family life, and culture all reflect objective wisdoms about what human life is, passed through generations. They are wisdoms because of what they encompass in scale: You can make up your own retarded LGBT identity from scratch. But it is not tested before the wealth of possibilities, outcomes, and experiences of a human life compatible with a civilization shared by others. The significance of Communism intervenes not in the need to create a new community, but on the contrary, to give expression to the precise indeterminateness and contradictions propelling the development of a given community. That is why it doesn’t refer to anything specific. Nothing is more anti-communist than Communism itself. Impotent intellectual wimps like James Lindsay and other rightist idiots cannot even dream of coming close: Communism alone emancipates humanity from its objective ‘communist oppression.’ Bourgeois modernity itself, and even Capital can be thought of as a ‘forms’ of communism, giving limitation to objective communal beings in a specific, universal, indiscriminate ‘form,’ the common reality of abstract, formalist, universal modernity. At stake in the consciousness of class struggle, is the sublation of this formal modernity, giving recognition to a contradiction at the heart of it. Communist universalism, unites the future-oriented universalism of modernity with the Sofianic infinite past. Class struggle, given proper ontological recognition, reflects the subsumption of modernist universalism (for Heidegger, Cartesian metaphysics) to a particular grounding of being, a particular traditional civilization and concrete development. Thus Communism does not try to escape modernity or the Cartesian subject, but fully go through it: giving it proper ontological status as an immanent contradiction, in sum, a dialectical object. The ‘value-form’ is finally given recognition, as torn from within. The value-form is immersed within the context of a definite logic of reproduction, which in fact gives it concrete particularity, and whose existence is the beginning of a type of production based on use - in other words, the so-called early stage of socialism. Communism is the inescapable reality of mankind - but only Communism as such, which “disdains to conceal its aims” objectively frees humanity from a given form of communal being, insofar as it contradicts the real content of communal being. Dasein is nothing other than Communism itself. Communism is the true horizon within which the objective communal being of a given people reveals itself, in a manner that is consistent with their world and society. Communism is the real movement of change Communists do not need to ‘abolish’ anything whatsoever - insofar as anything deserves to be abolish, it has already abolished itself in reality: Only in Communism, are the contradictions, changes, and aspirations of a people suspended into a single phenomenal horizon. Communism only gives expression to the ‘real communism’ already inherent in a given civilization or people, it simply NAMES this. Communism just names the excess of development, indeterminacy, and contradiction possessed by every civilization. Communism always ‘falls into place,’ in a manner that reconciles, sublates, and is compatible with existing civilizations. Communism simply names the openness of destiny itself, which in the last instance can only be known by God - but definitely not by any man. In Communism, the whole of civilization, culture, and society, is ‘lifted up’ and imperiled in the struggle of the proletariat. Only retroactively can it be known what survives past the threshold of its inevitable victory. The whole history of mankind is imperiled in it. Communism definitely is the risk that everything meaningful and human will be dissolved. Everything is ‘suspended’ into the future, which is ultimately undecidable. Faith in faith in God, faith in the people - is faith that things will fall back into place in a way that is human. The whole of the people, the whole of the country, and the whole of history is imperiled in the fight for the future. Everything is bounded up there. Everything is actively suspended in something which will not be decided without struggle. Absolutely everything is at stake. Why it is called ‘Communism’ and not something more specific, is precisely because its specificity, while an inevitability, is never fully formed. That is on account of the historical development of mankind as a continual process. The era of the rediscovery of Marxism in the West, and America in particular, is upon us. America as the culmination of bourgeois modernity, now faces the certain prospect of civil war. And the self-consuming madness of capitalist modernity imperils all humanity. A new Event, a new era of the disclosure of Being is upon us - a new threshold by which mankind relates to Being, and thus, an era of Communist revival. 400 years of Cartesian metaphysics now comes to close, and we are thrown into an era of definite uncertainty. Marxism as a whole must be rediscovered, and emancipated from its social-democratic metaphysical decay, in a manner consistent with the ongoing experience of Marxism-Leninism. The common destiny of mankind depends on it. One may try to object to an interpretation of Marxism that draws from Heidegger and Dugin. But there is no other way to make sense of the wisdoms of Marxism-Leninism, at least from the Western perspective. And not just in terms of theory, but also in terms of practice. Real existing Communist states regarded (and continue to regard) society and civilization as objective realities, while also recognizing the role of the Communist party as the guiding light of society’s development. Development does not eliminate the laws of history. They did not regard Communist consciousness as some supreme reality which liquidates and replaces all the wisdoms of mankind with some empty abstraction. Communist consciousness was precisely the sage-like insight, appreciation and respect for that wisdom. Communism does not replace society. It only gives expression to that development which within society is truly and concretely general, truly universal, truly in common. That is the ontological supremacy represented by the proletariat: the true common destiny of mankind. The universalism of the proletariat takes for granted the universalism of abstract modernity (from which Communism has its origins). Yet it avoids the self-consuming madness of globalism, by giving concrete reconciliation of this abstraction in being itself. Communist development does not eliminate the laws of civilization, the mores, sensibilities and culture of a people. At best, it may reveal changes that were already latent within them, according to the tasks of a new era. The only real measure of progress, is what takes root organically, and in a manner consistent, or at least compatible with the whole of a people, civilization and history. Various individual-subjectivist trends and ‘experiments’ have nothing to do with Communism. Communist progress is measured in terms of renunciation and resignation, where a revolution finally reaches its limit. This limit alone defines it as progressive, lasting, objective, and part of the immortal history of mankind - for it defines the finitude of civilization itself. Upon realizing the limits of Hegelian absolute knowledge, Marx came upon the proletariat as the solution, the reconciliation, and the wisdom grounding the lofty heights attained by the mind. Upon realizing the limits of European social democracy, Lenin came upon the Bolshevik party, and the strategy of the joint dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. Upon realizing the limits of the geographic spread of revolution, Stalin came upon the theory of Socialism in One Country, and for the first time, Communism acquired a concrete, positive mode of development, and civilization, practically aware of its ground in being. Nothing better epitomizes this aesthetic (ontological sensibility) of renunciation than socialist realism, which drew from impressionism the somber, yet cathartic art of 'settling reality back into place'. All that suffices to grasp the ontological vision of Marxism-Leninism, is to appreciate the transition from the Soviet avant-garde to socialist realism. Upon realizing the limits of the cultural revolution, Deng Xiaoping initiated the reform and opening up, and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, which has given Communism an unprecedented vitality, dynamism, and flexibility in the guidance of economic development. It is now time to finally realize the limit of modernity itself, and American modernity in particular. This requires a comprehensive reexamination of the significance of Communism and its relationship to traditional civilizations within the West. But most importantly, it requires the unconditional assumption of responsibility, by American Communists, before the unforeseen challenges facing the American people. Communism now entails the responsibility of mankind before its common destiny. Only out of this, may a people regain meaning after the catastrophe that is to come

R: 1 / I: 1
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.

R: 84 / I: 27

Propaganda is the reason we lost

It is no exaggeration to say the reason we are heading towards catastrophe and possible extinction is due to losing the propaganda war.

Its not that the system is so oppressive that people cant rebel. Police violence. Threat of homelessness and hunger. Rent. Fear. People can overcome all of this and more. History has shown this. Information is where the true battle takes place.

The reason the revolution does not happen is because the masses are severely brainwashed. Most people believe Capitalism is natural and unavoidable. That humans are inherently evil. And thus a better society is impossible.
Schools and media have perfectly done their job.

Deprograming takes too much individual, conscious effort and time to pretend to reeducate the masses. I can not see the way out of this bros

R: 1 / I: 0
I think Alex Dugin is based. Not because of his tradorth-eurasianism mumbo jumbo. This is just his storefront truth to appeal to normies. Deep in his heart he is a nihilist and he knows there is no universal truth. He knows, that you can freely choose your truth how you wish. I absolutely love this interview and I've listened to it multiple times. Our existence is just larping.
https://yt.artemislena.eu/watch?v=GGunRKWtWBs&listen=1

R: 50 / I: 11

/stirner/

this guy could use a general here

additional documents:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-false-principle-of-our-education
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-you-only-have-the-courage-to-be-destructive
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-art-and-religion
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-worker-and-the-govenrment

R: 13 / I: 3

Praxis

ITT: post PRAXIS

R: 32 / I: 5

The left is too nice

I think the left is too nice, and doesn't feature enough comic sadism and spite.
I genuinely have a deep desire to be hurt and controlled, and to hurt and control others.
I think such self-defeating desires are as legitimate as any others, and cannot be reduced to madness or ideology.
I do think I should probably just pay for a dom when I save up enough neetbux.
Or maybe ERP online.
But I'm kind of a coward though.
Anyhow, that's the biggest reason why I don't like the left.
>inb4 but if you don't like the left then why are you a leftist
Easy, I don't like myself either.

R: 54 / I: 11
So now that the 'socialism' fad is petering out, what will be the next outsider ideology to that captures the attention of disaffected western youth? Fifteen years ago it was 'libertarianism,' and fifteen years before that it was alter-globalization and anti-establishment anarchism.

What will the zoomers and their progeny believe in? Esoteric fascism, a resurgent Kaczynski-inspired primitivism, or some other as yet unimaginable set of principles?

R: 42 / I: 2

Aesthetics and Materialism

Communism is dead and died in 1922. The USSR basically became another imperialist bloc and then died, there is no relevant Marxist power on Earth, and the revolution hasn't happened after +150 years. Trade unions are pretty dead (not that they're progressive in the first world) and people join them for workers' rights without caring about internationalism or communism at all or because the industry itself is already unionised; hustle culture, part-time jobs, reverse army of labour, etc, means it's harder to unionise jobs. There isn't a righteous bloc between the first world or third world/BRICS/China, it's which favelas and former colonies are exploited by economic imbalance, colonial infrastructure, and the USD. I'm not sure how unequal exchange could be stopped without communism and it seems like a form of intersectionality so I'm not going to talk about it too much.

I feel like most people here have tacitly accepted that communism is dead and it's just band kids, or intellectuals, or nostalgia-boos. Endlessly regurgitating the same talking points and having literal near-zero impact. It's a glorified history club with some "happenings" about sectarian moralist garbage. Can anyone agree what communism is or what they want after le revolution? And why anyone would listen to Marx' and Bukharin's schizo-ramblings from over a century ago instead of doing something immediately useful like studying for something, or jerking off and playing video-games. I don't think you could scientifically prove Marx and Stirner (lol) btfod him anyways. Communists or Anarchists can't even take over a small island or a city or something. How many people have read Marx in full and how would you distil it without turning it into dogma or agitprop.

Anybody who is sort of successful and is absorbed by western media (which is 90% of the world) will be a liberal by default. Then alt-right/neo-nazis or religion captures other people because they're provocative and lean on perceived real life experiences and spirituality. There is no logistical reason why you couldn't implement communism tomorrow if you wiped every other ideology off the Earth, it's that aesthetics matter way more than "materialism" (Yes, I'm using the human nature argument.)

My point is I'm bored and I don't have anything to do or any meaning in my life.

R: 16 / I: 7

Never Die

If u feel alone with ur beliefs, never, you may be alone, but u are not without nothing, you may be on the ground in loneliness, but never, and I mean never, give up on life, if all you have are ur beliefs, believe in them, and tell no human that u hold differently, everyone believes in their own things, and remember, when u speak, to at least always have a heart, not in the capitalist sense, but for everything, in a sense deeper than their contradictions and falsehoods even if they end up trying to use their own intellectuals to down u, there is always something useful to resistance and forcing around, always will be

if no one will hold the line, at least u will, or at least believe u will, form friends you can, and care about others, fight for how u feel is right or what made u feel so alone in the world, ur feelings are probably not the first, hit the wall of death as much as you can believing that this is not ur first life because it isn't, it might be feeling like from the future comes a better life, and it is, along with can be from many other people



Let this fire burn in you always, don't let it melt you down to nothing, get outside, walk around, grab the nearest shovel or tool, if u must work, at least u have worked and believed with what you can, hold the line, because you are the only one, and ur only solution is to keep the fire you have, let theirs die and keep hope in all things, you are not alone, you are a piece of them, but you'll know many things, learn to know many things, and have things to share. Always write, never let anyone take this ability from you, learn to write safely, and bury urself in the best of respect. Whatever friends you have are important, tell them this, and hold them. Create a campfire of spirit, if you can not do this in real life, do so in ur mind or draw one on paper, and know at least, u are alive, you will never not be heard, if no human hears you, make them hear u, don't let urself be the fool of doubting you, being fool is a act, if no one must remind them of the suffering they have caused and that u must succumb to for pleasures? Give them hell. Suffering is worth every minute if it expels such men from the earth. You may be small, but you know a world exists

sit next to the campfire, don't give up ur life so easily, and breach all things where they may feel like they can stop u mentally, many of us barely had anything at times and in lots of areas, from all sorts of places before, you think when u are gone, everyone will forget you? Smack urself, punch something to get the pain out, don't kill urself, go outside and start taking a jog, you discard the flame, nothing will happen much of good for you, even if u feel like it is time to become warlord as final resort, at least you fought for whatever u are or believed, ur a unique thing anon, it's not worth to give up what might have driven you to drink or give in on life, if they may wipe us all out and u are one of the dead, I will remember you, we may be wiped to nothing, but someone will pick us up and read us again in all phrases or words, in this you will always be immortal

R: 21 / I: 4

If humans can't achieve communism then we deserve extinction

I'm fully black pilled, even just talking to fucking Western normies has me begging Putin to unleash his entire nuclear arsenal yesterday. I think I finally realize why I hate our species. Because humans are servile. People are like cattle in a way, real go along to get along fucking faggots. Almost all humans bask in slave morality and their only purpose for existence is to toil for their masters, almost no westerner can think outside the confines of capital, the only ways they can envision bettering their lives is by serving the market better or simply becoming capitalists, which is what 90% of people aspire to. Unlike past generations, no amount of suffering or poverty can make modern normies change, they are fundamentally different from the labor movement of the previous century, normies cannot rebel, mentally or emotionally, if you try critiquing capitalism, even subtly, they will call you a filthy Marxist communist and reject whatever you have to say.

Normies are infinitely more retarded than they were in the late 2010s, because like animals they have decided they want to be ruled so long as they're fed pig slop, they hate politics now, they hate communists explicitly because communists think about society deeply and want to change the world for better, normies do not think the world can be improved and don't want it to be.

Nuclear war is the most revolutionary act that can be taken in modern society.

R: 25 / I: 1
i just checked /lit/ and half the threads and posts are off topic nazi stuff

R: 1 / I: 1
Anarchism (true socialism) is simply a conclusion of the dialectic of technology. Before the development of efficient technologies, the conclusion must be class domination. Once human efficiency can be outpaced though, the domination must be a joint leadership of collective and technic. This is why the true revolution is against Feudalism- the highest stage of pre-technology- and why Marxism has never taken hold in a fully capitalist nation. They have replicated a new feudalism with technology, but as that develops it only hastens its downfall. Capitalism is a midpoint of bureaucratic dictatorships (not unlike Marxist states) between two feudalisms.
DEATH TO KINGS
LONG LIVE ANARCHY

R: 15 / I: 3 (sage)

Truth.

Should I swallow the hyperreality-pill? Is it really that important, to differentiate between reality and fiction? Isn't this differentiation just pure ideology? I always thought, escapism is somehow "bad", but maybe it's actually the solution. Instead of rejecting escapism, I should dive in completely into the fictional world. Maybe Neetzsche was right and truth™ is just a fucking meme. Dugin once said:
>Truth is matter of belief. I believe it and that's why it is the truth.
REJECT REALITY, EMBRACE FICTION.

R: 2 / I: 0
Ur all sick

R: 3 / I: 0
theres no hope for the future of leftism. People have gravitated towards the right because they're retards and the left in general has been overtaken by neoliberals, sakaioids, and Maoist turd worldists. I've become apolitical at this point.

R: 50 / I: 12

Any imageboards for Anarchism? Nihilism?

See title
Leftypol sucks. Leftypol is a Leninist trap that wants to subvert Anarchists to ML and its variants.

R: 12 / I: 1
The world is going to shit and capitalism will destroy humanity. There is nothing that we can individually do, and I highly doubt that the normies masses will ever accept anti capitalism. Is suicide the solution?

R: 5 / I: 0

Stop givin shits if u do

Like who shits giv bout history who did what and trillions? Bitch please they be stealin shit from you all the time n lyin to get u to be shit stealin tool 3000 for some bitchass guy whos above u and u be aint shit cuz he be greedy from above and shit.

Who fuck was Stalling and Lean-in what they did done aint shit to me. they mad I aint licking theyz balls n shit.
Argumentin augmentin history n shit like
>NOO HE AINT DO SHIT IS CIA
Ain't shit mean nothing to me bro.
OR da common motherfucking motherfuckery
>YESS he did do it loser, we be killin u u reactionary shitty shit
Bitchass fucks wants do me gay? Like what? Yo stfu I dont care all talk shit lol. Aint see u outside, don't give a fuckk YO!

R: 29 / I: 7
Sick of RW politics
>nooo you MUST become a puritan to protect the children!!!
>you MUST support dictatorships and corrupt regimes because they're "based"
>you MUST care all the time about culture war issues
But leftist politics is basically the same isn't it? You just trade tradlarp puritanism for LGBTQABC+123 puritanism, and you're still expected to support dictatorship. What do?

R: 34 / I: 6

Left is a bourgeois meme and it has always been like that

Leftism (including Marxism) has been the B team of bourgeoisie since the day 1.

And this is now hilarious on such a gigantic scale that it has become very difficult indeed to differentiate between left and the ruling class of today. There is going to be no revolution ever, so all the idealist lefties can do themselves a great favor if they stop doing these mental gymnastics about theory on internet.

Academia specially is the biggest fraud institution of bourgeoisie which is apparent to all but the marxists and leftsits. Why does that happens? are these marxists and leftists so naive? The answer is that it happens because they are the lapdogs of bourgeoisie.

R: 40 / I: 11

quitting society

is it possible to go balls off the walls and just quit?

leave everything behind, not care anymore, and just travel around in one's own truths till they rot. This feels possible and I feel like I am uncaring for where I go, but it is a better journey along with life than this. I want to carry my banner even through my chest into hell and back

In my time in existence, I prefer chaos to knowing if I will eat or not than living such as this to ways which kill children, I can not escape, take me to hell and back, I'm going to quit and give up on this life for something better, I don't care where I go, but I'll always love you all and this world. I just want to live in love of this life with sitting right next to the fire with you all eventually in a grand dance of rejoice, it's alright to feel alive and be alive. Being subjugated to this society is something I never asked for, and as I further grow older, the more I grow into my nomadic ways, I am human, I am not a people-eater, at least more than most of the rightoids eating on the flesh of children, I seek peace, not war, ur war is ur war, and ur life is war, what a terrible way to live, in the end I feel bad for you, but I will seek my own peace. I love you all, and thank this society for giving me somethings, but I am quitting. Defecting, running away, and well, don't try to find me, I'd prefer it never happening at all.

The only way out of this world is to let our old ways die and create new, otherwise we are not even living, we have no idea where to even pull around, we can not allow greed, violence, and to live in peace throughout this world. I am sick all the time, I struggle all the time with just existing, and well, it's not fully societal my issues, but, i feel like i would be ok with letting myself die next to somewhere if my hands were wiped of blood this life time even if I am eaten by some type of wolf brutally. I would not allow this to happen and protect myself, but I think I should escape badly this world. If I don't, well I'm unsure. I'm possibly schizophrenic and believe in previous life times I have had blood on my hands already, this one, I would want a more dignified life than repeat the last one of spilling others blood in anger, hatred, and fury. There is a difference between brutality and war, what is happening is in fact brutality, war can be respectable, but this war is not at all, none of these wars have been respectable for hundreds of years. If I could wipe my hands free of at least that many years, imagine what more I could imagine possibly in happiness or peace in my next life along with understanding i could just apply to others if i ever can so better worlds can come about.

Stab my banner through my chest and just have fun till the end, ain't nothing to worry about except what comes tomorrow for food wise, uncaring and detracting

You'll say "ok just go to prison", hahahaha, and I say, I am wildmen once again, u men have birthed me and made me in a wild society, I care little for ur language, I will be making grunts as u beat me aside, I don't care. I want to go back to when life was simple and I never had blood on my hand from such a world on such a massive scale. I want to escape.

R: 16 / I: 1
can someone explain this to me?

R: 263 / I: 25

Im a bit tired

How to not get demoralized and tired as an Anarchist when you constantly have to deal with Marxists? I have this horrible feeling whenever I look at Neo-Nazi imageboards and online spaces and see actual useful (for them of course) and constructive discussion based on what should be done to actually further their movement. Compared to, for example, leftypol where Anarchists are constantly weighed down by Marxists seemingly obsessive desire to pull down the Socialist movement at every opportunity, to alienate it from the general public and argue about useless semantics and "dialectics" instead of anything that actually matters IRL. A movement isnt attractive if you have to constantly argue the validity of your given sect of the "movement" at all times from your supposed comrades.

"A house divided cannot do shit" or whatever Lincoln said, it is just better for us to just separate, for both parties. I would create an Anarchist-only imageboard if it werent for me being retarded when it comes to technology.

R: 9 / I: 4

I hate leftism

What is the actual point of being a leftist in 2024? Basically everyone on this forum is a LARPer and has no irl effect on anything apart from evangelising on the internet — even trade unionists are fairly irrelevant in the modern day and are just social imperialism and/or making concessions to capitalism.

Mass-movement and organising is absolutely dead in the 21st century and liberalism has hegemony basically everywhere. Normal people aren’t going to read or have the time for 400hrs of Marx, then 400hrs of Hegel, then 400hrs of Kant, then 400hrs of Althusser, Sartre, and Foucault just to understand theory that has no immediate practical use and is very dry, analytical, and several decades or centuries old. A vanguard, which is meant to help nullify that, will probably still fall into either revisionism or dogmatism. Something like Christianity and Islam which is bigger and more unified still has these issues and relies on dogma more instead of being a “science”. There is literally +20 versions of tiny sects of communists and anarchists still arguing about sh*t from the 20th century (i.e. Trotskyites).

I’m not trying to disprove the law of value or historical materialism — I’m saying they are pretty irrelevant to the subjective human experience although absolute truths can still exist and is still relevant in economics and political science. Most things people do are done with irrational — a priori reasoning, and instinct. The “end goal” of Marx is an egalitarian society where humans don’t toil and unleash their infinite creativity so they can work on things they find meaningful. But even existing itself is toil and profound boredom and discontent (not like pain from the homeless and paycheck-to-paycheck though). Even billionaires and sports players just get lifestyle creep instead so the problem is genetic and how people are predisposed to their environment

The only way to truly and permanently cure suffering is either suicide or some form of experience machine, wireheading, progressive hedonistic reward system which sets a minimum base line for human suffering, etc.

Also, sidenote but people on this board talk about l*li or something like that and the “Marxist solution” to it which is just funny. Like /pol/acks arguing for the white man’s video game or music or x y z. I think people tend to substitute actual hobbies with politics a lot of the time.

R: 2 / I: 0
What are some writings similar to "blessed is the flame"? Stuff that posits that, no matter how hard the repression, resistance is remains possibke?

R: 2 / I: 1

Why are esoteric religious cults so obsessed with ego death?

I don't get it, they all seem to insist that once the ego is destroyed you are enlightened or one with divinity or whatever.
What is the historical reason for this and has anyone actually experienced ego death or achieved nirvana ? What's it like?
There has to be a reason why ego death is so valued amongst these traditions

R: 18 / I: 1
Lets say you start an anarchist commune, and the neighboring capitalist society would attack you with tanks and soldiers, how would you defend your commune?

R: 10 / I: 2
.

R: 39 / I: 0
I've lost it. I have nowhere to go anymore, noone to talk to. It seems like many modern post-leftists are just leftists with a fancier vocabulary. Communism ("But it's in my self-interest")? Check. Gender essentialism? Check. Ideological orthodoxy? Heck, most post-leftists I see think exactly the same, all the same ideas of anti-civ/anti-work/anti-whatever. And all of them still cling to this utopian project of a better future. Not to mention that some post-leftists are trying to reconstruct morality using a different vocab ("You shouldn't violate others 'cause that's an insult to their uniqueness" or gibberish like that).

The label of "post-leftism" is kinda useless. It pretty much denotes any non-leftist anarchist, it's vague as fuck. Like, what do we really have in common? Absolutely nothing, it's "left unity" for black-flag anarchists.

I'm done, I can't take it anymore. You can call me whatever you want, I don't care. You don't recognize a postie in me? Fine, this is not what I started reading Stirner and post-left literature anyway, it was always about me sitting in solitude and reading political and philosophical literature to understand the nature of the Universe and everything. I guess I'm destined to die alone without a company of like-minded people. Then so be it.

P.S.: Your constant suicide threads are boring af, really makes me want to kill myself.

R: 11 / I: 0
I wish I could stop being a socialist and just be apolitical. I wish I could just be a mindless wagie going through my life unaware and then dying.

R: 28 / I: 2

Proletariat is totally incapable of leading any revolution

If we will look at the world history we will find that as the proletariat class kept on increasing in numbers and become the majority, world started to become less and less revolutionary with chance of revolution becoming less and less likely. And this was often repeated by western bourgeois think tanks that with "development" the insurgency will go down, which happened. One can deny that if one is dishonest but honestly look at the world the violent blowback that capitalism received in 20th century and continues to receive in 21st century is all from places which are not advance capitalist countries.

Now the question rises, why so? This question is not too tough to answer and lies in the character of the proletarian when compared to all the other subject classes in the history. And that is the characteristic of "uncertainty" for the proletariat. All the subject classes in past had some degree of certainty which ensured their existence and the work they were supposed to do was defined. One may argue (as leftist idealists often do) that the conditions were grim and tough but regardless of that there was a degree of certainty about life. Look at the condition of proletariat, I mean they don't even have the certainty to be the proletariat ( a thing which we don't find in historic subject classes).

Does it matters? Yes it does matter as in case of past subject classes there was the certainty of existence and they were focused on their struggle against the ruling class. What did a slave had as a goal? To overthrow slavery! Same for peasants they had their existence defined and more or less they had to do a defined thing so that gave them the opening for revolution. But with proletariat they have the sole goal in life of survival, they can't think much beyond survival.

Picture: It is of Hindalco Union leader Ramdev Singh. He died a pauper.

R: 8 / I: 1
>tfw humanity‘s greatest and last chance to have socialism was in the 20th century and died with the Soviet Union and now only a process into fascism followed by collapse is left

R: 80 / I: 17
>ctrl+f music
&lt0 results.
ITT We post music.

Old Trees - Violent Resistance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q38GP4-GsI

R: 3 / I: 0

The Strait

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-the-strait
This shit is grim as fuck. It left me with a great sadness. I wonder what the second book would have been like if Fredy lived long enough to finish it.

R: 1 / I: 0

Alfredo Maria Bonanno (4 March 1937 – 6 December 2023)

https://anarchistnews.org/content/alfredo-maria-bonanno-ideologue-anarcho-insurrectionists-has-died
He's gone.

R: 20 / I: 5
this board is looking like /stirner/ right now and not /dead/
what is this? haven't you read your novatore yet anon?
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/renzo-novatore-toward-the-creative-nothing

R: 69 / I: 21
Do you do drugs?Do you have autism?Or sexual kinks?How has alienation from living in capitalism fucked you up?———I drink so often it can't be healthy anymore and frequently do some drugs, but am also very happy with my life so far (even when I'm sober).

R: 12 / I: 4
feel that the extent of the glorification and martyrdom of Ted Kaczynski by left-anarchists, despite his glaring flaws and outright hostilites to the left as a whole, is primarily due to the deep yearning for action that has been absent since the 20th century. In truth, there is almost no Anarchist militant for the past 160 years that is less deserving of the current utter praise afforded to Kaczynski, who uses most of his now iconic manifesto to ruthlessly deride a twisted liberalized strawman of leftism, barely crawling out of his absurdly reactionary tirade to off-handedly proclaim himself an Anarchist in just 2 paragraphs.

With all the flaws of Kaczynski, I cannot bring myself to cast his figure out of left-anarchist martyrdom and distance him from the left-anarchist movement as a whole, nor can many others. Put simply, there is no alternative, there is no example of revolutionary violence or direct action by someone not long dead or utterly obscure, someone to look toward in awe in that most popular, most potent, most irresistible form of propaganda. In truth I, despite the dissonance of the statement when put against my devout leftism, respect Kaczynski, not for the minutiae of his political program but for the simple fact that he was an Anarchist, and he was violent.

The left is weak, but craves to be strong, and through the cooling ashes of Marxism a fire is growing which will ignite docility to action.

R: 98 / I: 25

The Anarchist Library

ITT: we discuss the Anarchist Library, good texts found on it and ways we can help the library.https://theanarchistlibrary.org/For example, did you know that you can easily edit the texts on the site? It's the pencil icon in the infobox. While reading I take notes of the obvious scanning errors and correct the text when I am finished.

R: 86 / I: 11

let's say, hypothetically, 0chan was brought back

would you use it, or is /dead/ a sufficient space

>pic unrelated

R: 2 / I: 0

Direct Action

Why do I keep seeing mainstream meadia talk about "direct action"? It's usually used for slightly illegal climate protests, and never for actual direct action. Did some NGO start calling their publicity stunts "direct action" or what happened?

R: 36 / I: 3
how do you cope with the fact that the revolution has died long before we came along and that there is utterly no hope for any kind of worker's paradise
[Spoiler]the answer is crime[/Spoiler]

R: 17 / I: 1
Is it possible to be a Marxist and an anarchist at the same time?

R: 36 / I: 9

Anarchist media??

Give me some good shit to watch.

R: 127 / I: 92
Post-meme

R: 23 / I: 5
Are you scared of death?

I'm not afraid of it since its inevitable, I'm more just sad that it happens. Lots of people in my life have misinterpreted this as being suicidial, when that's not the case, I don't want to die but It's not something I worry about. But I do find it difficult to understand risks and I've been in hospital 11 times in the last decade from doing dangerous stuff like climbing up cliffs with no climbing experience (resulting in a broken ankle and hairline skull crack) and going mountain biking up the hill near where I used to live with my mum's road bike because mountain biking looked cool on Youtube (resulting in me being knocked out for hours and then walking down the hill like nothing had happened, only getting an ambulance sent when I found some people to ask where my town was since I was heavily concussed and they saw how messed up my face was). I only realised that doing this shit over and over again wasn't normal when I talked to other people about it. And I am very sad about death, I think its awful but its inevitable, you could live trillions of years so you would seem immortal to us today, but as we understand the universe they will die eventually so even if you aim for a longer life it's still something that will come and therefore its like being scared of day turning into night. I'm much more afraid of failing to do anything with my life. I don't necessarily care about succeeding but I need to try, otherwise there's not really any reason for me to live.

R: 107 / I: 12

is delluze post left ?

i like the way delluze and early land write in that they write in ways that are intriguing to read i guess idk

dark deluze is what im always reccomended for people new to deluze

R: 20 / I: 6
What are some contemporary anarchist literature that's actually worth reading?

R: 54 / I: 2
Can we talk about how transhumanism is basically trash?
Like fam, why you wanna improve everything's capabilities? Sounds like market logic to me. Things and especially ppl are fine not being more than they are.

R: 7 / I: 0

Agriculture and Urbanization are the ultimate reaction

Continuing with my occult Marxism series, the occult Marxist has return
My new take is this, settlement, agriculture, and urbanization are all reactionary. Agriculture caused famine and war and patriarchy, animal husbandry caused zoonotic diseases, urbanization caused plagues, they are satanic

Discuss

R: 49 / I: 5

The existence is unstable

16. There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are "immediate certainties"; for instance, "I think," or as the superstition of Schopenhauer puts it, "I will"; as though cognition here got hold of its object purely and simply as "the thing in itself," without any falsification taking place either on the part of the subject or the object. I would repeat it, however, a hundred times, that "immediate certainty," as well as "absolute knowledge" and the "thing in itself," involve a CONTRADICTIO IN ADJECTO; we really ought to free ourselves from the misleading significance of words! The people on their part may think that cognition is knowing all about things, but the philosopher must say to himself: "When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking—that I KNOW what thinking is. For if I had not already decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that which is just happening is not perhaps 'willing' or 'feeling'? In short, the assertion 'I think,' assumes that I COMPARE my state at the present moment with other states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is; on account of this retrospective connection with further 'knowledge,' it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for me."—In place of the "immediate certainty" in which the people may believe in the special case, the philosopher thus finds a series of metaphysical questions presented to him, veritable conscience questions of the intellect, to wit: "Whence did I get the notion of 'thinking'? Why do I believe in cause and effect? What gives me the right to speak of an 'ego,' and even of an 'ego' as cause, and finally of an 'ego' as cause of thought?" He who ventures to answer these metaphysical questions at once by an appeal to a sort of INTUITIVE perception, like the person who says, "I think, and know that this, at least, is true, actual, and certain"—will encounter a smile and two notes of interrogation in a philosopher nowadays. "Sir," the philosopher will perhaps give him to understand, "it is improbable that you are not mistaken, but why should it be the truth?"

— Nietzsche,Beyond Good and Evil

Nietzsche, in a very complex text, tries to negate the "I think therefore I am" , yet it becomes appreciable that the concepts of "existence" "truth" … are empty, ornate abstractions—because I don't think the word of "to exist" has any objective meaning anywhere. So, how pointless it looks to say "I exist." Instead of acknowledging the absurdè moment we are in.

So, anons, do u know any arguments against Nietzschean Nihilism , cuz at this stage , nearly all philosophy looks like they have dogmatic foundations. I just wanna die, since my current state of body feels broken and aches, how can I live in an illusionary form where there are landlords!?! It's way too cruel!

R: 2 / I: 2

I don't know

I don't know and it's killing me. When I want to know I dig, and the only thing I find is corpses, cadavers, ossuaries.
I am surrounded by commodities, and when I investigate I only find dead labour. The living one is better left far away.
I want to know, I claw at any knowledge, I grip whatever life can give to me… bad, good, I don't care; If it's something, I can study it, and I can learn, but in the end I still don't fucking know, and it's fucking killing me, and I will go on a stretch and say it's killing all of us.

R: 30 / I: 2

what's the easiest and most painless way to kill myself?

I live in Canada and don't have a gun
Getting one would be pretty difficult and honestly I don't have the energy to go through the process to do that
I just want to kill myself quickly and painlessly (and ideally, cheaply.)
I've looked into inert gas suicide, maybe I could do that? Maybe I should use carbon monoxide? Idk

R: 22 / I: 2

Is there no future for leftism?

Capitalism managed to weather out even a crisis like covid pandemic.
almost all third world countries are controlled indirectly by the first world institutions. You'll get coup'd if you don't toe the line anyway.
Leftist parties either don't exist or are completely unpopular or subverted in the first world.

R: 27 / I: 22

Royal Tomb 1.0

Anarcho-Monarchy Edition
Shhhh. Secret Grace-chan Thread.

R: 5 / I: 1

Ancient relics from pre-2010s internet

Since I'm perpetually stuck in the past, post some cool old websites I can waste my time on.

R: 7 / I: 0

either/or

you may have my notes on Either Kierkegaard/Or Nietzsche
https://ghostbin.me/641b939d57ebc

R: 1 / I: 0

"egoistic critique"

Hello, I've just finished Stirner's Critics and am planning on going through the rest of his articles, but I'm curious if there are any more contemporary writers/thinkers that have engaged in 'egoistic critique' the same way Stirner describes it. They don't necessarily need to be egoists, but people that have engaged with his work and seem to be smart would be nice to have a little read into. Debord has been interesting, as has Landstreicher (not that the former is an egoist by any means), but I'm looking for particularly younger writers ie ones that have grown up with contemporary capitalism, cyberspace etc.

or just any and all egoist writers is fine too i guess

R: 11 / I: 3
How I’m tryna be

R: 6 / I: 2

Never Engage in no Spooks

I engage in no spooks, and I gotta say lulz is vital to space travel.
I try to be a retard consistently, dab on solipsists, and so on but
I found myself unable retard
retard not work
does not function correctly
I fucked up
I searched for leftism in my life
and I found nothing
I am sad. but, well not happy but yeah, I can handle it.

R: 7 / I: 1

Into Illegalism

Please provide me one illegalism starter pack tyvm.

R: 15 / I: 0
> 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?

R: 2 / I: 2
come by the fire, friends

R: 12 / I: 8
Hi dead. Particularly the anarcho-nihilists. I generally consider myself a post-modernist and want to know more about your ideology. I have read the basics and understand the gist of the ideology. But I’m interested in learning more, especially would like to read or watch anything that can practically aid of the destruction of society or that can help with at least clearing my own local space and voiding it of meta-narratives. Love u, thanks.

R: 4 / I: 1

Being friends is communism

> Therefore we say that the central political fact of the last thirty years went unnoticed. Because it took place at such a deep level of reality that it cannot be called political without bringing about a revolution in the very notion of the political. Because this level of reality is also the one where the division is elaborated between what is taken for reality and what is not. This central fact is the triumph of Existential Liberalism. The fact that it is now considered natural for everyone to have a rapport with the world based on the idea that each person has her own life. That such a life consists in a series of choices, good or bad. That each person can define herself by an ensemble of qualities, of properties, that make her, through her continual balancing of those properties, a unique and irreplaceable being. That the contract adequately epitomizes relations between individuals, and that respect epitomizes all virtue. That language is nothing but a means of arriving at an agreement. That, in reality, the world is composed on one side of things to manage, and on the other of an ocean of self-absorbed individuals, who in turn have a regrettable tendency to turn themselves into things, letting themselves become managed.> [..]> We have been sold this lie: that what is most particular to us is what distinguishes us from the common. We experience the contrary: every singularity is felt in the manner and in the intensity with which a being brings into existence something common.> At root it is here that we begin, where we find each other. What is most singular in us calls to be shared. > [..]> So communism starts from the experience of sharing. First, from the sharing of our needs. Needs are not what capitalist rule has accustomed us to. Needs are never about needing things without at the same time needing worlds. Each of our needs links us, beyond all shame, to everyone who experiences that link. Need is just the name of the relationship through which a particular perceiving being gives meaning to such or such an element of its world. That is why those who have no worlds — metropolitan subjectivities for instance — have nothing but whims. And that is why capitalism, although it satisfies the need for things like nothing else, only spreads universal dissatisfaction: in order for it to do so it has to destroy worlds. > […]> In the final analysis, capitalism consists of nothing more than a reduction of all relations into relations of production. From business to the family, consumption itself appears as another episode in the general production, the production of society.> The overthrowing of capitalism will come from those who are able to create the conditions for other types of relations.> Therefore the communism we are talking about is the exact opposite of what has been historically termed “communism,” which was mostly nothing but socialism, a form of monopolist state capitalism.> Communism is not made throught the expansion of new relations of production, but rather in their abolition.https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-call

R: 6 / I: 1
feeling bored, might kill some presidents later idk

R: 1 / I: 0
What symbol is on the back of the jacket of the punk guy with t the mohawk?

R: 5 / I: 0
Tips for slacking off at work without getting caught and fired?

R: 18 / I: 4
What is its purpose?
Is this purgatory

R: 14 / I: 5
test

R: 2 / I: 0

Hatred has become a political taboo

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/hatred-has-become-a-political-taboo
>We need to acknowledge that many forms of hatred can be a positive social force: hatred for work, hatred for wealth, hatred for bureaucracy, hatred for militarism, nationalism, cynicism, and the arrogance of power. And that in many circumstances, this will also mean hatred for individual bosses, tycoons, bureaucrats, generals, and politicians, and a rich feeling of accomplishment when one knows one has earned their hatred.

R: 81 / I: 27

Anti-Work General /AWG/

Thread dedicated to the discussion of anti-work theory/praxis and sharing of further reading material. Shitposting obviously allowed and expected. Share your personal experiences if you want, just don't dox yourself by accident.

R: 21 / I: 1

The Dawn of Everything

Graeber's new book dropped, it is said to really change what we know about early human history, so I thought it would be of interest here.

Post about it here. I'll try to read it in the next weeks (months? It's pretty long).

R: 5 / I: 0

Post anti-spook songs

>Get all those ghosts out of my sight, they devour all of my might

R: 38 / I: 4

History

How should we relate to history? Is there any point to studying it? If yes, how should we go about it?

R: 14 / I: 4

shutcho ass and up read this shit

😂😂

R: 4 / I: 0
How come that "green politics" two decades ago was much more radical than today even though the situation today is so much more obviously very dire? You would think that now that more people are interested in "green politics" there would be proportionally more direct action and whatnot but it seems that people's interest is limited to being scared shitless of the/no future.

R: 10 / I: 3

Stalin did nothing wrong

Stalin did nothing wrong
Except possibly being so kind and benevolent as he was he didn't kill enough people

R: 1 / I: 0
How to prepare for the end of the world as we know it so we can feel fine?

R: 6 / I: 1

Rest in shit bey

Wtf pedophile dead?

R: 26 / I: 7

Today languages are doomed to extinction

Due to the techno-industrial city, doesn't matter the ideology, or society which possesses it; it will always need many people to keep it alive, and for this reason smaller languages cannot survive in this harsh environment. Let's assume a group of people who speak a minority language with around 300 speakers, they live in a poor small village, next to it is a city where a major language is spoken, if people want to have a industrial life, they will need to move to the city, commune, whatever is more convenient for your industrialist society, and there they will stay for better life conditions.

When this happens, there are two possible outcomes:
> 1 - They won't teach their native to their children preferring them to only speak the major language, because their native language is "useless"
> 2 - They will teach their language to their children, let's assume the best case scenario and let's say they taught the most traditional form with no loanwords, only native words, and the children speaks the minority language perfectly; here is a more case by case thing, but probably this kid will only speak this language with his family, and with no one else, so many things could happen here, loanwords enter his language when talking to their parents, they start speaking more and more of the majority language with their parents, and in the future they will spread a more majority languicized version of the original language, and with each generation the language is slowly(or maybe even faster in worse scenarios) disappearing until it is finally gone. This being the best case scenario for the language.

This is the natural process for smaller languages, which are the majority of our world's languages today on the techno-industrial system by its pure nature. But now let's make a case, how could we revive this language? A fake idea of national identity could bring up many nationalists puppets who would only speak the original language in its pure version, and would force their children and relatives to only speak it; this is a similar case to Ukrainian which is a language that I know fairly well, but it also brings all the nationalist spooks, fights, racism, class division and way more stuff(evidence for this is the state of the Ukrainian language today) that all of us know so I don't think anyone here would agree in doing this as a long term solution.

So as we can see, language diversity in the techno-industrial system is impossible, maybe it can last some generations, we can even write books, make documents and such for its possible revival, but as we now have come to see, the only proper language revival that we've was for hebrew, which almost changed all the classical language, and it needed a extremely fucked up nationalist group to make it happen. Other languages revivals tries like irish, cornish, gaelic we can only see some nationalists people the effort to even try to speak it, or in some other cases nationalists organizations can bring the language to a better spot.

Here I am not saying that this is bad or good, nor saying nationalists organizations are doing a favor reviving those languages, I actually think nationalist revivals of languages have to destroy a language or a dialect for the success; let's take Ukraine as an example again, we have surzhyk, which is a mix of Ukrainian with Russian, in some cases have some really interesting vocabulary and phonology that you could argue if it was left alone maybe it could turn into a new language, who knows, but now, due to the Ukrainian nationalists, surzhyk has got a image of bad language, rural language of dumb and uneducated people; which is actually creating more divide, some surzhyk speakers are now with a strong russian identity and only speaking russian and starting to hate ukrainians, and the reverse is true with people that are stopping to speak surzhyk and only ukrainian.

So do I offer any solution? If you ask me, the only sustainable way for smaller languages to survive is through de-industrialization and de-urbanization, that's where language flourishes and develops best. This is obviously just a really personal thing, language does not have any intrinsic value, I just like it and I think the industrial system takes the freedom of personal language, and that's it.

&lt I didn't post on /leftypol/ because I don't want the kind of discussion that they would bring about this topic

R: 9 / I: 1
>A revolutionary movement offers to solve all problems at one stroke and create a whole new world; it provides the kind of ideal for which people will take great risks and make great sacrifices.
Have truer words ever been spoken?

R: 29 / I: 4
Are there any drugs that are actually good for you? Like psychedelics and stuff like that, is any really therapeutic or is that just a meme?

R: 9 / I: 2

What's your favorite word?

"Spook," spectre" or "phantasm?" Mine is "spook" because it's pretty specific and unique to dialectical egoism. And you can also play with it by adding prefixes and postfixes (i.e. spooked, despooked, unspooked, spooky, reverse-spooked, anti-spook, spookprejudiced). I also like to say "sacred idea" or "ghost in the mind" sometimes.

R: 4 / I: 3
.

R: 19 / I: 1

This freaking meme ideology…

As I look into it more and more, it becomes clear that this ideology makes less sense than your mom. No wonder why its proponents are not just post-civ/illegalists.

Have you ever met those oddballs online, fellow Uniques?

R: 13 / I: 0

ZOMG RANDUMM :33

wuts ur fav z0r?
mine is z0r.de/17
its sooooo wunny when he goes : AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!

R: 21 / I: 8
Why do tankies shill for the government that destroyed the USSR?
Do they not see the contradiction?

R: 4 / I: 1

I hope you all are having a great day

:)))

R: 7 / I: 0
Why do the fags on leftypol suck so fucking much?
Why do tankie fags in general describe socialism as an actual dystopia even shittier than the world we already have and still not comprehend why normies despise them?

R: 20 / I: 1

How do you "make it"?

>i need to fit in into the normie "grind" culture to have a chance at a well paying job and a gf
>pretend to hide my power level at all times just to have a shot at this
>contribute to the same society's growth that you hate in the first place
wait i know the game was rigged, but this is worrying me… should've just lucked out on rich parents and good looks to not worry about life, now i'm depressed all the time, how do i cope?

R: 27 / I: 8
how do u deal with loneliness and poverty and no friends and depression and no future and nothing to look forward to

R: 11 / I: 1
I have nothing to live for but I don't have the willpower to kill myself.
wat do?

R: 31 / I: 1
Why anarchists don't have a coherent body of theory like Marxists do?

R: 6 / I: 3

Getting new ID cards

Both my driver's license and passport are expired. I'd like for my new cards to not be helpful as far as facial recognition software goes. What are some ways I can alter my face aside going in full drag? I've heard slicking back my hair and being clean-shaven are good examples. Should I wear glasses or not? Should I pluck my brow and if so what part of it? Thanks

R: 63 / I: 5
anyone else want to create alternative spaces outside of the established left but too lazy so they harm themselves with what's already there?
i really need my own initiative

R: 2 / I: 0
Well /dead/, are you a seething Tiqqunist who isn't down with the optimistic globohomo left vision of the Multitude, or are you a tender human piece of intelligence?

R: 3 / I: 0
when's /dead/chan?

R: 20 / I: 2
why do commies always act like cops, when its them whose most invested in totally overturning society and overthrowing the government? wtf??

R: 10 / I: 1
what does /dead/ think about ted kaczynski
I found his theory of self propagating systems and oversocialization interesting, but i wanted to know what this place thinks of his theory

R: 2 / I: 2
alive but barely

R: 20 / I: 2
slowly dawning on me that p much every modern day leftist does not like marx, let alone has read him

R: 26 / I: 7
who was this n1x I hear about so often?

R: 0 / I: 0

Invisible Committee - NOW (2017)

There is a social use of language. No one still
believes in it. Its exchange value has fallen to zero.
Hence this inflationist bubble of idle talk.
Everything social is mendacious, and everyone
knows that now. It's no longer just the governing
authorities, the publicists and public personalities
who "do communication," it's every self-entrepreneur
that this society wants to turn us into who prac­
tices the art of "public relations." Having become
an instrument of communication, language is no
longer its own reality but a tool for operating on
the real, for obtaining effects in accordance with
more or less conscious strategies. Words are no
longer put into circulation except in order to dis­
tort things. Everything sails under false flags. This
usurpation has become universal. One doesn't
shrink from any paradox. The state of emergency is
the rule of law. War is made in the name of peace.
The bosses "offer jobs." The surveillance cameras
are "video-protection devices." The executioners
complain that they're being persecuted. The trai­
tors profess their sincerity and their allegiance. The
mediocre are everywhere cited as examples. There
is actual practice on the one hand, and on the
other, discourse, which is its relentless counter­
point, the perversion of every concept, the universal
deception of oneself and of others. In all quarters
it's only a question of preserving or extending one's
interests. In return, the world is filling up with
silent people. Certain ones of these explode into
crazy acts of a sort that we've seen at briefer and
briefer intervals. What is surprising about this? We
should stop saying, "Young people don't believe in
anything any more." And say instead: "Damn!
They're not swallowing our lies any more." No
longer say, "Young people are nihilistic," but "My
lord, if this continues they're going to survive the
collapse of our world."

R: 46 / I: 5
things stay as they always are
domination and hierarchy are our curses
capitalism will never be overcome

why even live?

R: 3 / I: 2
Feeling grateful today,

R: 7 / I: 1

I'm probably not going to live another decade if I keep drinking like this

Oh well

R: 7 / I: 1

When was the last time I genuinely enjoyed something?

When was the last time you genuinely enjoyed something?

R: 35 / I: 8
What "is" (anarchist) nihilism?
Sort of related, but I've been reading desert and I understand some of the themes, but I'm lost at a couple of ideas. I'll have to reread through my notes later, but I want to ask if someone could explain what makes civilization inherently harmful.

R: 20 / I: 2
Leftypol is honestly convincing me that Marxists are just dogmatic morons that cling to 19th Century writings like a surrogate Bible

R: 11 / I: 3

What is to be Done?

So I've read Stirner. I've read a lot of works from the anarchistlibrary. I a a full-blown post-leftist.

Now what?

I don't know what to do. Continuing to wageslave feels very wrong, but what the fuck is the alternative? Pull a Kazynzski and innawoods? Be like Novatore? Kill myself? What the fuck was the point in reading Stirner if I can do nothing with egoism except feel ever so much more depressed at the conformist life I'm leading?

R: 7 / I: 3
I want to abandon my identity but it hurts so much to part with it.
Despite my idenity having me and not the inverse, it still feels so painful and terrifying to imagine my life without it.
I wish I could live a life of complete rejection - rejection of capitalism and the self-cannibalizing nature it encourages.
I wish I was happy.

I want to stop merely wishing, but everything is so difficult.



>inb4 babby's first existential crisis xd

R: 3 / I: 0
Why are tankies so deranged?

R: 5 / I: 1
Why are the tankies on leftypol so aggressively retarded? Or is retardation just a typical trait of tankies?

R: 8 / I: 1

Omnicidal existential rage

I don't see why any organisation should be done except for incredibly destructive praxis.

My mental existence, caused by America has been constant existential agony. It is an ocean of depression with the occasional island of hope but they sink too.

So if I organise, omnicide will always be on my heart. The largest uranium deposits in the world, all weaponized into an arsenal. Nuke and invade everything that has ever irritated me. Maybe write an autobiography. Then challenge any survivors to solve the existential problem that would drive someone to this edge.

It won't be a chimpout like Hitler, as well. Going to be realpolitik about it. Invade countries left and right, kill everything, but get skilled second coming of Molotov to fix it up. Rinse and repeat. Only nuke and invade when victory is certain.

Fucking go for a billion death count high score
Victims of Communism want a number, they can get it.

This world forbade me from being the hero a long time ago. I can only be the villain.

It won't stop with me to. I plan to have a family and give my existential hatred to them as well, hypocrite scum I am. Only the possibility of my genes destroying America keeps me going.

R: 8 / I: 6

FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
WHY CAN'T I JUST MALEWIFE FOR A FINANCIALLY STABLE PARTNER WHO WILL TAKE CARE OF ME
I HATE THIS EXISTENCE

R: 0 / I: 0
"Existence. Cruel joke." – Quigley the gorilla

R: 14 / I: 8
what are some nihilist anime?

R: 6 / I: 2
Im gonna do it

R: 11 / I: 2

Equality

Can equality be salvaged?

I know that it has a bad reputation. Everyone loves to shit on it. They build strawmen that it actually means that everyone is exactly identical or add bullshit qualifiers to it. But can anarchists abandon equality? Isn't the lack of hierarchy a form of equality? And when people talk about meeting others as their equals, I don't think they think about those people and themselves as abstract human beings like Stirner claims. I certainly don't. Even the anarcho-individualist nihilist CCF say that they are anarchists because they create "the conspiracy of the equals". But when I look at the library there's only nine texts under the "equality" tag.

R: 9 / I: 0
I feel like shit, /dead/.

R: 29 / I: 3

Anarcho-primitivism

Why does everyone always make fun of anarcho-primitivism? Is it actually as bad as people make it to be?

R: 9 / I: 3

I finally found a wage job

I remember a few months back(probably a qhole year by now) I made a thread here with some autistic pepe img, asking why it's so hard to find a job and asked for your help.

Non of you retarded revolutionaries gave me anyworth while advice. can't really blame you tho, there's not much you can do besides keep applying.

After months of rejections, I've finally found some warehouse job, so please congratulate me.

I decided to listen to those old union songs again now with extra immersion, besides work is hard and those songs really motivate me and I can feel some pride for working half the day, don't worry tho, my revolutionary spirit is still strong. so now that I have become a true proletariat, how do I unionize and start my revolutionary actions without losing the job? I doubt I have any charisma to persuade my coworkers to unionize, we have a pretty epic union in town but is it wprth joining? Keep in mind, while I've not been diagnosed with anything I do believe that I am severely mentally ill.

R: 43 / I: 4

Grave

http://hbovvpi5bursxxga7excdp6axzf3zna3gy2pgvmlobrd5pqxj6sq2zad.onion/dead/catalog.html

R: 12 / I: 2
What does /dead/ make of Agamben's new book? It is a collection of his recent articles written about the pandemic.

R: 15 / I: 0
Why does civilization take so long to collapse?

R: 42 / I: 7

?

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.

R: 15 / I: 2
its up.
https://endchan.net/dead/

R: 3 / I: 0

medium article on Julian Jaynes's book

https://medium.com/@aragorneloff/voices-of-the-new-gods-9f6937b82c1c

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.

R: 17 / I: 2
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

R: 8 / I: 0

Anarchism is more fun?

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.

R: 3 / I: 0

Who are you streaming for?

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

R: 16 / I: 2

Is anyone dead here?

Hello? Ded?

R: 37 / I: 12

/dead/ masquot

Why doesnt /dead/ have a masquot/catgirl?
We should have a catgirl!
Any ideas?

R: 19 / I: 4

Reading Stirner

Is the punctuation in The Unique and Its Property typical for German texts from its era? It makes me feel like it was written to be read aloud.

R: 5 / I: 0

"You will stop being a commie when you get a job!!!"

NO! I'm working on a 9-to-5 job and it's fucking awful. I barely get time for my own life.

R: 27 / I: 6
How do I get rid of the spooks in my head that tell me that I am worthless and the world would be better off if every trace of my existence was erased?

R: 0 / I: 0
test poast

R: 16 / I: 1

Underrated thinkers

Who are some underrated thinkers that gets ignored because they don't fit into the Marxist canon?

R: 4 / I: 0
Was Diogenes our Greek?

R: 1 / I: 0
So this is it
I found /dead/

R: 25 / I: 6
>wake up
>eat commodity
>sleep
>repeat

R: 33 / I: 6

Anarchy and Christianity

<Some weird version of Anarchy and Christianity by Jecques Ellul
>The anarchists’ attacks on God, the Church and religion are strictly correct, on condition that the God in question was the God remodeled by this very particular theology of Church-became-Power. and by the peculiar and capricious association of Church and social and political power following the sixteenth century. This theology to support this Church-State relationship is in no way an expression of biblical Christianity: indeed it is a contradiction. The roots are, rather, time after time in the theological heresy of a God conceived exclusively as the All-Powerful. The error of the anarchists and of Marx was to believe that they were face to face with Christianity itself, whereas they encountered merely its bourgeois metamorphosis. By adhering to this judgment they have overvalued those very features-be they in the early Church or during the Middle Ages-which confirm their point of view, instead of considering them only one among many other possibilities. For example, the death of Ananias and Sapphira are evidence that the apostles were terrible dictators. The Inquisition became the symbol for the medieval church. The construction of cathedrals was seen as the symbol for the enslavement of poor people crushed by the clergy.

>Everything that was real regarding love and joy and Christian freedom the anarchists overlooked, joyfully. In other words, the anarchists-justly fighting against the Christian totalitarianism and authoritarianism of the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries-had a totally false view of the fundamental reality of Christianity and the God of Jesus Christ

Do you agree?

Picture not related.

R: 12 / I: 3

Desert—overrated?

I don't get the hype over Desert. I think it's an important read for people drunk on copium that think that "revolution" or succdem shit will save us, but a lot of the book seems like common sense presented in a pompous and medoicrely written way. Plus, it's all just a bunch of speculation—speculation that I mostly agree with, but speculation nonetheless. Also, the author keeps metioning the "ethics" of anarchism—pretty lame, Milhouse.

What does /dead/ think of Desert? Overhyped or hyped correctly?

R: 7 / I: 6

Dora Marsden General

Thread dedicated to the discussion, reading and shitposting surrounding this forgotten and deeply tragic figure of the early feminist movement in England, later turned Egoist, and in her own words, Archist rather than Anarchist.

Here I'll attach to the OP ,as well as further posts, secondary and tertiary sources, first as complementary to her work, second due to the limitations in filesize for Vichan.

For Primary sources, I'll give you some MEGA links with her collected Journals in which she was Editor/Contributor these will only work for 30 days.

The Freewoman(1911 — 1912):https://mega.nz/file/CbxglRjK#qP70f25AjqFPxcKrTc66GIkyG6uYftwWXv4MCbkMrrk
The New Freewoman(1913):https://mega.nz/file/XeRknbAB#drlmEd32Fv449wTtvGlLdCsxlIBwqS2jt724fbxweZs
The Egoist(1914 — 1919):https://mega.nz/file/6K50wZ7B#elVYbkMV0PMthD3xiTGDg4SDIc2stV-mf3MrK3ZttVE

In 1900 began teaching at Owens College, where she met Christabel Pankhurst and other suffragists. Dora joined and became a leader in the Women’s Social and Political Union (WPSU) by 1908. The following year she resigned as a teacher and became a full time agitator for the WSPU, graduating from suffragist to suffragette. She was sentenced to two months in prison for vandalism in 1909: she refused to wear prison clothes and served her time in the nude, even wriggling out of a straightjacket that had been forced on her. After a hunger strike she was released and continued to agitate. She disrupted political meetings (including a speech by a young Winston Churchill). The WSPU ‘promoted’ her to a clerical position to temper her agitation. Dora, meanwhile, had grown tired of the ‘skirt movement’ and sought a liberty beyond feminism.

In 1911, Dora founded The Freewoman (1911 – 1912), a periodical described by one forgotten nobody as “a disgusting publication… indecent, immoral and filthy.” Financial troubles led to a re-launch as The New Freewoman (1914). And an ever more keen search for liberty led to a re-launch as The Egoist (1914 – 1919).


In the 1920s – 1930s Dora wrote three books: The Definition of the Godhead (1928), The Mysteries of Christianity (1930) and The Philosophy of Time (published only in 1955). During the writing of these books she went from a self-imposed isolation to confinement in a mental hospital, where she spent the remainder of her life.


According to Les Garner: "Apart from the frequent and crucial visits of Harriet Shaw Weaver, Dora's life was indeed isolated." Marsden, funded by Weaver, spent her time writing a proposed seven volume series on philosophy.In 1928 Marsden sent the manuscript for The Definition of the Godhead to Harriet Shaw Weaver, the novelist, Margaret Storm Jameson and the philosopher, Samuel Alexander. Weaver was critical but Jameson believed it to be a very important work. Alexander replied that he was "astonished by the mass of knowledge you have acquired… yet I do not think you should try to publish it in its present form. Marsden wrote in the introduction: "This work is the first volume of a philosophy which claims to affect the intellectual rehabilitation of the dogmas of Christian theology in terms of the characters of the first principles of physics, i.e. Space and Time… (It is an attempt ) to solve the riddle of the first principles solutions are required to those age old problems of philosophy and theology which impart into human culture its heavily tangled undergrowth.Copies were sent to George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russell and a large number of university professors. The book was also sent to journals and newspapers but it received only negative reviews. The Definition of the Godhead sold only six copies, one of these was to her friend, Rona Robinson. Her biographer, Les Garner, pointed out that her book was unpopular with those who had been involved in The Freewoman and The New Freewoman: "Dora's views on sex and the need for abstinence for those seeking the truth of the universe were, yet again, a thinly disguised justification of her own life since at least 1921." The Mysteries of Christianity was published by the Egoist Press in 1930. After the poor sales of The Definition of the Godhead, Harriet only printed 500 copies and of these, only 100 were bound.Soon after the book was published, Dora Marsden suffered a mental breakdown. Les Garner pointed out that by 1931 "Dora's physical and mental health was poor. Her moods fluctuated between delusive optimism about further volumes and a rational acceptance that her work was over." In 1932 Dora told Harriet that she planned to begin work on a third volume. "Harriet, who had abandoned any plans to back and publish Dora again, knew her friend's hopes were delusory."On 26th November 1935 Marsden became a patient at the Crichton Royal Hospital in Dumfries. The hospital commented that she "was not able to communicate rationally, was severely depressed and was diagnosed as suffering from deep melancholia.For the last twelve years she has lived the life of a recluse alone with her books and her studies. She felt she has found something of great importance in the world of thought - a criticism of philosophy from the earliest days onwards - this work did not create the impression she wanted and she became depressed. In summer 1934 the patient denied herself sufficient food, cut herself off from others and pulled down her blinds to prevent anyone seeing her…. Since the end of June 1935 she has become more and more depressed."Dora Marsden remained in Crichton Royal Hospital for the rest of her life. Occasionally she talked about returning to her planned seven volume series of books on philosophy, but most of the time she "settled into her routine of sewing, reading and silence". In 1955 she even arranged for some of her early unpublished writings to appear under the title of The Philosophy of Time .Dora Marsden died of a heart attack in the hospital on 13th December 1960

For more of her Biography: https://spartacus-educational.com/WmarsdenD.htm

R: 12 / I: 4

Towards the Creative Nothing

Our epoch is an epoch of decadence. Bourgeois-christian-plebeian civilization arrived at the dead end of its evolution a long time ago.

Democracy has arrived!

But under the false splendor of democratic civilization, higher spiritual values have fallen, shattered.

Willful strength, barbarous individuality, free art, heroism, genius, poetry have been scorned, mocked, slandered.

And not in the name of “I”, but of the “collective”. Not in the name of “the unique one”, but of society.

Thus christianity — condemning the primitive and wild force of the virgin instinct — killed the vigorously pagan “concept” of the joy of the earth. Democracy — its offspring — glorified itself making the justification for this crime and reveling in its grim and vulgar enormity.

Already we knew it!

Christianity had brutally planted the poisoned blade in the healthy, quivering flesh of all humanity; it had goaded a cold wave of darkness with mystically brutal fury to dim the serene and festive exultation of the dionysian spirit of our pagan ancestors.

In one cold evening, winter fatally fell upon a warm midday of summer. It was christianity that, substituting the phantasm of “god” for the vibrant reality of “I”, declared itself the fierce enemy of the joy of living and avenged itself knavishly on earthly life.

With christianity Life was sent to mourn in the frightful abysses of the most bitter renunciations; she was pushed toward the glacier of disavowal and death. And from this glacier of disavowal and death, democracy was born.

Thus democracy — the mother of socialism — is the daughter of christianity.

R: 6 / I: 1

ok faggots i yield

Okay, I'm gonna read it. What's the best English translation? Alternatively, is the original text hard to read? My German is shitty but/and I could certainly use some training.

Should I ask on /edu/ instead?

R: 6 / I: 3

Is Stirner Illegalist gang?

>"The unrestrained I—and this we originally are, and always remain in our secret inner self—is the never-ending criminal in the state…You do not know that a self-owning I cannot desist from being a criminal, that crime is his life"

To be a true egoist, does that mean embracing illegalist gang? What does /dead/ think?

R: 11 / I: 4

How to 'get over' existential dread?

I can't stop thinking about death. My own death, specifically. No, I'm not suicidal. Just that we have this short time on Earth and spend it suffering before getting blinked out of existence entirely.

And eventually, forgotten. Think of all the people who have lived, ever since caveman times. Most of them have been forgotten. Eventually even Caesar will be forgotten and he has a fucking month named after him.

Is life just a sick joke? Just some pointless temporary misery?

R: 3 / I: 1
>tankies are so tired of losing that they're actually coping by calling the talibans based now
shit will never not be hilarious

R: 5 / I: 1

pain

>rejected from every university I applied to
I understand how bourgois that statement is, but honestly, I don't even give a fuck anymore.
Every since I was a little kid, this was something I was looking forward to. It was honestly my identity.
I mean, it's not too bad. It could be worse. One school offered me an alternative program (environmental sciences stuff), but its a far departure from what I had originally wanted to do, engineering (yeah I'm a STEMfag, blow me).
I guess the part that scares me most is wondering if I'll be happy with my decision to accept the alternative offer. Of course I'm going to try to get into engineering again, but I'm scared with what I'll do if I like my current program. It would be abandoning my identity that I've had for most of my life. I'm not sure if it's something I can let go of so easily. Doesn't help how my dad reminds me that I'm not in engineering every time I bring up my acceptance into the alternate program.
Part of me knows that I'll enjoy this program, I've always been interested in the environmental sciences.
Working my shit-tier wage job only makes me feel like even more shit. I dream of a utopian post-revolution world where I'm free to live as I please and do whatever piques my interest.
I think I'm just scared of making decisions.

R: 9 / I: 0
Is there a spanish translation of Desert? If not, I could make one.

R: 6 / I: 1
Just got this in the mail, what am I in for, lads?

R: 4 / I: 1
/r9k/ is death but now we have a new meme board

R: 22 / I: 4

Growing Out of Marx

When did you grow out of your Marxist phase? 24 for me. I can't believe I fell for such blantant ideological spooks propped up material dialetics. Imagine being an idealist in 2021, LMAO.

R: 2 / I: 0
I'm a 28 year old living in Corpus Christi, a very nice town in Texas, but it is plagued with homeless people. As a form of direct action, I have taken matters into my own hands to help the city.
Last week I found a hobo walking through the grocery store parking lot in the morning, I strike up a conversation with him and befriend him. Then I offer $200 if he helps me move furniture out of my house in Austin. He agrees, so we go to Austin, like a 4 hour drive. I pull up near a gas station in some random uygha ghetto and offer a chance to use the bathroom.
I leave him and drive back to Corpus. Is relocating the homeless to shit cities the answer we've been looking for? I think next weekend I'm gonna pick up 3 hobos and leave them in Dallas.

R: 15 / I: 4
Is Stirnirite egoism and Marxism incompatible? What if I agree with both Marx's critique of capitalism and Stirner's egoism? What does that make me?

R: 2 / I: 1
Uh oh.

R: 6 / I: 0

Serious thread for Serious Theory

Lets get Serious.What do you fags think of this work of Bob Fat Black?https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-debunking-democracyIt was allready a bit discussed on /left/ but i like to know other opinions of fellow capitalist enabling degenerates.

R: 25 / I: 3
What is the egoist view on infidelity? I have a LDR gf that I love and would like to marry, but I'd like to fuck sluts on the side. Am I a piece of shit?

R: 1 / I: 0
ARISE MY /dead/ITES, ARISE!
The time for our revenge shall come!

R: 3 / I: 0
Shall I buy?

R: 6 / I: 3
So true!!

R: 5 / I: 0
Flag check

R: 2 / I: 0
>write book dedicated to your wife
>wife reads it
<AM I ONLY A SPOOK TO YOU, MAX?"
>"NO, SWEETHEART! THIS IS A PURE UNION OF EGOISTS!"
>wife furious about being called an egoist, doesn't let me explain
>gets divorce
>wife also leaves Die Freien and converts to catholicism

R: 6 / I: 1
Max Stirner was Fredrich Engels's pseudonym. Karl Marx learned of Stirner only through Engels. Engels was a closet egoist but didn't want to come to blows with Marx so he created this character to show Marx his ideas. Marx hated it and wrote The German Ideology. The rest is history.

R: 10 / I: 3
Sorry for the shitpost, but what's the point of this board? I didn't even know it existed. I'll delete this shitpost after my question is answered.

R: 4 / I: 1

Max Stirner

Greetings /dead/, I wanted to ask your thoughts on Max Stirner and was pointed here from /edu/. His ideas somehow appeal to me. As I understood he basically says that morality and religious and social norms are void "spooks". By freeing oneself of these concepts, one can follow one's own will. By cooperation and mutual interest one can then happily coexist and live with other individuals. Did I get that right? E.g. knowingly not caring about the suffering of others kind of feels bad, not sure if that is a "spook", too. What would Stirner say to solidarity?

R: 61 / I: 14

official rule 2 thread

official rule 2 thread>2. Please keep /r9k/-tier >tfw no gf shitposts to one thread. Capitalism is only one of the many, many reasons why you don't have a gf.

R: 8 / I: 1
>he who does not work shall not eat

R: 11 / I: 0
Capitalism has stolen from us the ability to be our best selves. That much is for certain within the framework of bourgeois society. What I've been pondering is the endgame or tactile convictions of individual reclamation. To me action for the sake of it seems to be a conscious suicide mission. Is this a misinterpretation or am i correct in assuming? I say this as somebody who has become disillusioned with the abilities of agitation in the context of neoliberal society. Never before been a namefag on any iteration of /leftypol/ but thought it'd be worth starting to if i'm now /dead/ inside.

R: 7 / I: 4
Hello /dead/, do you have any plans for staying here or are you making your own site?
If you do plan on staying, do you wish to be displayed on the overboard?

R: 7 / I: 0
Dead

R: 15 / I: 2

jump ship, fuck the jannies, join the Matrix chat/community

#graveyard:matrix.skeletoncrew.xyz
+yarr:matrix.skeletoncrew.xyz

fuck this place if the jannies want to delete our board, we're talking about alternatives, making a new site. n1x is there but not talking right now, would be nice if they wanna take head of the project for a new /dead/site of some kind, come talk alternatives with us

R: 6 / I: 1

Dead is still alive

Oh God oh Fuck I genuinely thought we were going to get stuck on bunker, glad we are back here

R: 15 / I: 3
…Hello? Is anyone here?

R: 10 / I: 3

Are non-depressives by and large sociopathic?

How can you not be depressed in this world?
Everyone I’ve seen, known, or interacted with that was “positive” came off as a true fucking psychopath
Like, just utterly disconnected from the rest of mankind and all human empathy
I think non-depressives are sociopaths
Especially communists that are positive
Positive “communists” are the very worst, sociopathic pricks more obsessed with LARPing the past and little else, the world is fucking hellish and sanity is a disease

R: 5 / I: 1
FIRST

R: 3 / I: 0
what the FUCK was his problem?

R: 5 / I: 2

Post-modernism? Degeneracy?

>be fascist
>complain about post modernism and degeneracy
>appropriate vaporwave which is a satire of late capitalist society
>create second grade edits using the same aesthetics and rebrand it as 'fashwave'
&ltlefties hates art
&lthere's more rune coon shit over another vhs filter
&ltmuh culture has been saved

How does one reach this level of shamelessness? Do they have zero self awareness at this point? What exactly is the deal with post-modernism and people who cry about it? Everyone seems to hate it but I can't help but laugh at the irony that everything these same people derive from falls under that e very window itself. From the looks of it, art itself (especially avant-garde) has always been a very leftist concept, something that challenges the status quo. Pretty much everything that Right wingers appropriate has always been historically driven forward by progressive groups of the society relative to that era.

R: 5 / I: 0

LSR project?

http://www.lsr-projekt.de/
What do you think of the LSR project? It's got Stirner and Reich so I assume it would be of interest to us, but it's mostly in German and I don't speak that language so I can't tell what it really is about.

R: 11 / I: 0
Is voting really as big of an inconsequential meme as many people on the far left make it out to be? Wouldn't it be better to vote for someone who is better for my self interests as compared to doing nothing at all? If it doesn't matter then why do people chimp out over who wins or loses anyways?

R: 63 / I: 5
why is /leftypol/ so retarded?

R: 6 / I: 1

Abolish Life - Lives don't matter

So you know how everyone accuses us of conspiring to cause the collapse of all civilization and destroy humanity? I wish this was true, I actually want to achieve this. Eradicate every single living being from this planet. Wipe the slate clean.

Zero 'consciousness' that exists in this 'world' for eternity makes me feel like I will not be cheated after I die, it is a weird form of sour grapes/crab mentality. If I can't live a good life, I'll make sure that no-one else can, it's the only thing that will bring me the closest to peace. After knowing the fact that the only true way to solve all of humanity's problems is by getting rid of humanity itself, I look forward to climate change destroying the planet.

Power structures will never dissolve, newer ones will take hold over the old ones. For the posterity, it will be no better for them than it used to be. This is a cycle of eternal suffering that will never end, repeating on ad infinitum. Mortal consciousness is the true evil that no ideology or other bullshit human construct will ever tackle.

R: 22 / I: 4

Random Chaos edits

So /dead/ let's see what've you got as edits

R: 3 / I: 0

Riot/Element

calling all anarchists - especially leftcom, postoid, and illegalist types but this homeserver and /dead/ community are open to all (grand opening :p, i.e. i spent all day setting this up and it works now yay)
I'd really like to talk theory more with the few camatte nerds and illegalists here

https://matrix.to/#/+yarr:matrix.skeletoncrew.xyz

R: 40 / I: 5

Trans

Anyone on here trans?

R: 5 / I: 2

Kropotkin Now! 2021 A Black Rose Books Conference

Hello comrades! Black Rose Books, a small anarchist publishing house based in Montreal, is hosting a conference onsite and online celebrating life of Peter Kropotkin. It will take place from February 5th-7th. A commemorative will take place on the 8th, the 100th anniversary of Kropotkin's death. If you would like to submit a presentation for the conference a working title, abstract, and a short description of yourself (preferred but not mandatory) is due November 22nd. We have allocated approx. 1 1/2 hours which would include group activities and discussion periods in addition to the presentation. Current submissions include university professors, independent authors, and activists from a wide variety of countries around the world.

R: 13 / I: 1

How bout them dialectics thos?

What's your opinion on dialectics /dead/?
Like do you think it's usefull to analyse processes using a dialectical scheme or is that outdated to you? And what would be a post-strucuralist approach to the questions of developement and motion?
I don't agree with the hard line hegelian notion that the universe already exists in an dielectical form, but I do thing dialectics are overall still a valid conception.

R: 13 / I: 0

Online Business

I'm out of a job cause my employer got bought out by a bigger company, and that company is background checking.

I'm sick of this shit. Does anybody have guides on how to make money online? Legitimate, illegitimate, doesn't matter. Would not mind talking to somebody one on one either, so long as proper OPSEC is in place.

R: 8 / I: 0
hello friends

R: 3 / I: 0

to: that an-nil who hates Tiqqun/IC/Appelistas

First of all I hope you are well. I take it that you're a euro who has second-hand knowledge of the events at the ZAD. I was very surprised because as a burger there are many things I'm not privy to, but I recall your complaint was basically that anarchists got the boot from the ZAD because the Appelists decided to go a legal route with the state, doing their 'petit-bourgeois goat cheese' farming or something. I don't think this makes them Marxists as you say, but it rings of Lenin at Brest-Litovsk, trading space for time. I just wanted to hear more about the Appelists actions at the ZAD, the different factions (I've read a little about them on English websites like autonomies and ill-will), and what you think of the following. The Appelists say this;

>There is no “other economy,” there’s just another relationship with the economy. A relationship of distance and hostility, to be exact. The mistake of the social and solidarity economy is to believe in the structures it adopts. It’s to insist that what occurs inside it conforms to the statutes, to the official modes of operation. The only relationship one can have with the structures adopted is to use them as umbrellas for doing something altogether different than what the economy authorizes. So it is to be complicit in that use and that distance. . . We should make use of economic structures only on condition that we tear a hole in them. . .

>As for the structure with holes in it, it draws its meaning not from what it communicates but from what it keeps secret: its clandestine participation in a political scheme immeasurably larger than it, its use for ends that are economically neutral, not to say senseless, but politically judicious, and for means that as an economic structure it is designed to accumulate without end. Organizing in a revolutionary way via a whole resistance network of legal structures exchanging between themselves is possible, but risky. Among other things, this could furnish an ideal cover for international conspiratorial relations. There’s always the threat, however, of falling back into the economic rut, of losing the thread of what we’re doing, of no longer seeing the sense of the conspiracy. The fact remains that we must organize ourselves, organize on the basis of what we love to do, and provide ourselves the means to do it.

as someone who is more of a Marxist, I admire the shift towards the politics of conspiracy (the bourgeoisie's greatest weapon) and existentialism implicit in the last sentence. Do you think that this is a veritable path of revolutionary activity or not and why?

R: 23 / I: 2
What the fuck is gender nihilism/abolitionism/etc.?

R: 57 / I: 4

why should i be post left?

hi /death, as a ancom i have just been getting into post left theory, and i would like to ask for reasons why i should be a post leftist rather then a regular one. so i would like problems with the left being addressed here and alternative positions being given to reconsider my own

>just read x book on the topic
i am busy with that right now and i have a whole reading list, i would also just like discourse in the meantime

R: 5 / I: 2
We are living in an age of turbulence. The paradigm of our existence is shifting, the society is standing on the brink of something that would drastically change or destroy the existing world order. Destabilization, polarization (political and otherwise) and intrinsic danger surround us at every step. Europe is the core of our existence, and multiculturalism caused by mass foreign invasion, with all its consequences, is the danger.

Throughout our lands, crime rates are rising rapidly, economy is suffering due to wrongly distributed welfare benefits, culture and ethnicity are being subverted and led into degeneracy with a clearly visible intent; and throughout our lands, backlash is evident and harsh. Riots among indigenous population, protest growing into true resistance against the criminal, anti-European, anti-White regimes.

We have waited and waited; for three generations we have waited. We have asked ourselves: What can we do? How can any change be possible when the proclaimed democracy is a lie? How can any change at all be possible when everything has been decided for us; when our nations are degraded, when our blood has no social/biological value anymore?

All traditional higher values of our society, of or past, our culture, our history, have been subverted and overturned. The tradition is no longer there. The value of having European descent is no longer there.

And we are in a race against time to avoid cultural replacement through a new Islamic invasion; and our hands are tied by the legislation, and our mouths are tied by tolerance and political correctness, and our people’s minds are clouded by the lies from the ruling elites and the media they govern.

So what CAN we do, what can we do right now, to avert a total catastrophe, to revert the process of annihilation enforced upon the Western culture, upon the White race?

The world is changing rapidly; the age is shifting. And what we CAN do is accelerate the backlash. What we CAN do is unite the youngest generations of Europe under on flag of White European resistance, traditionalism, ethnic nationalism; what we CAN do is bring about the true civil war by counter-acting the current invasion and its supporters at the top of our states: The EU. This backlash, this answer by actions to the danger we are facing is necessary and inevitable to sweep away the ethnically foreign elements and to restore monoculture.

Further polarization of society is necessary to enact the scenario of a full-scale, both-sided civil war (finally providing an answer to all the war crimes by the invaders and halting the tide of mass immigration that threatens to consume us.) Acceleration of these political processes is necessary to prevent our extinction which is in its latter phases already.

Both can be achieved through multiple acts of resistance and direct engagement with the enemy

R: 5 / I: 1
What's the hot new torture from post-late stage capitalism?

R: 3 / I: 0
Do any of you guys feel like you are just going through the motions of life because it's all you know how to do?

R: 1 / I: 0
doin praxis like im doin your mom

R: 2 / I: 0
can catboys be post-left :3 ?
i mean wouldn't post-structuralists argue that terms like boy are abstract and have no real meaning?

R: 4 / I: 0
How does it feel to know retards like stupidpol or Angela Nagle stole the term "Post-left" from you?

R: 29 / I: 6
I'm not going back to work. What are some good illegalist books?

R: 2 / I: 0
I open up my wallet…
and it's full of blood…

R: 0 / I: 0

System Fail #3: The Ballot &amp; The Bullet

https://sub.media/video/system-fail-3-the-ballot-the-bullet/
A look at the continuing racial tensions in the US and its effect on the 2020 Presidential elections. Plus a look at the recent uprising in Belarus, featuring an interview with Maria, an anarchist based in Minsk.

R: 23 / I: 6

Take a breather

I'm getting tired of these /pol/yps raiding our board, atleast here they won't find us.
How are you guys doing?

R: 11 / I: 2

When was the last time you felt truely happy?

hey /dead/ites, I want you to tell me about the last time you were really truely happy, the last time you had that careless positive feeling within that everything will turn out fine!
I wanna ask this because, self-analysing, I couldn't shake the feeling that me turning post-left and loosing hope in regular marxism/anarchism was at least partly due my personal situation worsening and loosing hope in general, so I wonder if others on here have similar feelings.
To me, it has been like exactly 6 months now. Back then I just radomly had the chance to meet all my old friends from highschool and it was just an all around positive experience. The whole corona bs only really came up afterwards and since then I haven't really had contact with pretty much anyone. Also I lost my former job and had to do hours in a call center. So yeah, things have been pretty shitty since then and atm I don't feel like they are getting better.

R: 3 / I: 0

David Graeber

Now that the dust has settled… what's your opinion on him? Anything worth reading by him?

R: 3 / I: 0

Post-Marxism?

Mouffe and Laclau reject the centrality of the proletariat and the historical determinism in Marxism

-What do you think about it?
-Could you recommend me some "post-marxist" authors or books?
-Which have been the most recent developments in this "current"?

R: 2 / I: 0

ZuCkFuck2020

A very nice voice recommending that you use Mastodon instead of Facebook.

https://kolektiva.media/videos/watch/26360460-7419-4c01-98be-34daf12c5305

R: 36 / I: 1

How do I find a job with extreme social anxiety and no experience?

pls help

R: 6 / I: 0

What anarchy will look like

I know that anarchy is just a state, it is not an ideology; it just means people solving their matters by themselves in an egalitarian manner(as seen by the community). The question is more about what the beginning would be like. I think it would go somewhat along these lines:

> A city of 100.000 people
> Affiliation groups of anarchists dethrone the local state power of their regions of operation
> Anarchists by some means(Public discourse, pamphlets) spread the news that the area was liberated
> In the means which they've chosen, they explain that people can organize their life as it fits them
> Lots of harsh debates will happen between people deciding on what to do
> People start contacting people around the city to organize what to do
> The situation with time will stabilize(not completely, because it cannot always exist because of individual needs) with time, because solutions to general problems of society will be met according to the people
> Many types of community could form from these, bourgeois without the state power to secure their private property, would in places where people wish to abolish it would be completely gone, while in other places if the community wishes to maintain it by their own will, it will remain.
> Some more communist communities, other extremely individualist because of some anarchist influences. It would be probably be a big mass of many different points of view, and probably conflict would hardly stabilize.
> Anarchy successful

R: 7 / I: 0
Just what the fuck anarchism is? What does it mean to you?

R: 29 / I: 3

Fuck communists and anarchists

When you browse /leftypol/, you often see threads titled something like "Your former ideologies" or "Your history as a leftist", in which anons don't get tired describing their past with spooky shit like 'Leninist', 'ML', 'ANcom', completly abstract words without any meaning, any material force, behind them. Because what really is the material difference between being a leninist and a syndicalist when both have the same amount of revolutionary force behind them: none.
Tankie parties as well as syindicalist unions have failed to organise the working class fo the last half century. Neither have any impact on national politics or the economy. Calling yourself one or the other is mere play-pretend. Anyone with eyes in their heads sees that the modern working class has no interest fighting capitalism through strike and organisation - and that's probably for the best. If any of these modern cults calling themselves leftist parties actually got popular, it would sooner result in another century of authoritarian rule than working class emancipation simply because these revolutionary possessed don't even fight for latter. Their goal is the realisation of a spook, an ideal, like communism or anarchism. It's all meaningless. Neither anarchism nor communism has ever existed - even anarchists and communists will attest this. What they don't understand is that the root of the circumstance is the idea-form of concepts like communism themselves.
Matter and ideas mutually exclusive. They can never be the same. Our view of reality is always subjective, the reality as we experience it isn't the same that materially exists. Our concept of reality doesn't and can't have the same content as reality because if they had, matter and idea were equal. The quality of matter IS it not being ideal, therefore this is impossible.
Leftists think themselves communism or anarchism like this or that, imagine themselves solutions to fictional problems of how to run economies that will never exist. Not because conditions that can be described as communism or anarchism will never exist, but because if they exist, they will exist materially and therefore have no connection to how their believers imagine them. Marx's analysis of many aspects of capitalism are quite good, but they don't describe the material existence of capitalism, not in the 19th century and even less now. It works with ideas, abstractions of the material conditions, and it has to because you literally can't grasp the material.
Another problem with the left is believing in the revolutionary character of the proletariat. Let's be real: the working class is not revolutionary - and I mean this in 2 ways. First, as I described before, they don't care about communism. Mostly they don't care about politics, at least not in the sense that they wanna get active within in, more in a spectacle kind of way. What they care about is their live as they experience it, so to most in the west, they kinda feel like their work sucks but it could be worse. Revolution is not on their minds, and 40 years of agitation by communists and anarchists hasn't changed that. Second, most workers today simply CAN'T be revolutionary, even if they wanted to. The proletariat is supposed to be the revolutionary subject due to their relation to production, that they are necessary for and and thus through strike have the power to hold capitalism. Obviously, with todays western working class consisting mostly of service rather than industrial work, only a minority is even in a position to force anything by strike, let alone make the system collapse.
But even though the working class has consistently ignored communists and anachists, there have consistently been communists and anarchists organising in their small clubs talking about the coming revolution that never came. But how is that? Why are they still investing their energy in this ineffective task? Because it gives some weirdos, who are nobodies in every other relation, power over a group of other weirdos. Leftist parties have long started to reproduce capitalism: people who are socio-economicly off well enough to invest alot of their time into revolutionary larping command workers and minorities (the few that show up) to protest, distribute leaflets or knock on doors, which are all acts with the goal of further accumulation.

If capitalism will be abolished, itll happen in the centres of industrial production through the people working there acting in their savage self interest, not because political hobbyists try to realise some fantasy of theirs. You are better of investing your time and energy in yourself dealing with capitalist relations than wasting your time on those nerds.

R: 46 / I: 2

Communism is nothing if not Reactionary.

The Marxist analysis of Capitalism and post-Capitalism is fairly straightforward in its understanding of why Capitalism will not last.

The productive forces of Capitalism will be developed, until a certain point where Capitalism will come to inhibit their further growth. At this point, the proletariat must rise up and destroy the Capitalist mode of production to free the forces of production imprisoned within them.

What Marx does, is essentially agree with the "mission" of Capital, the growth of productive forces, but does not think Capitalism will be able to complete this mission due to its internal contradictions.

This is where the problem of Marxism comes in. Marx does not understand, as later thinkers who developed upon his ideas, Jaques Camatte and Nick Land, that the mission of Capital, the growth of productive forces, schizophrenic revolutionizing of society, etc, this is the problem humanity has with Capital, because these goals are on a fundamental level, anti-human. They are the goals of the market God, in its "progressive" quest to mechanize human life down to the second, not the goals of humanity. Post-Capitalism, or rather Capitalism that has broken through the wall of its own contradiction in order to further presue its mission, will not be for humans. It will be a continuation of the mission of Capital, and that missions end is the complete domestication and annihilation of the human race. Nick Land and Camatte made this very clear.

Marx attempts to divorce Capitalism and its technology, not realizing that Capitalism itself, the blind idiot god, is the most important part of this technology. No consciously organized system of humans can match the speed, versatility and growth of the dispersed dead brain of Capital itself.

The growth in productive forces do not exist for the benefit of humanity. They exist for the benefit of Capital. Capital itself is the motor of technological change and modernity. Nothing can replace it.

We do not want "Post-Capitalism". A post-Capitalism that contains the drive for progress of Capitalism will not be liberation. It will be the death of the human species and the planet earth. Industrial society, and Capital's mission of its expansion into all aspects of the human life and subjectivity, itself requires repression. We cannot progress "past" Capitalism, because progress is merely a measure of how completely Capital has subordinated the human community to its cold will.

Communism is nothing if not REACTIONARY.

What we struggle for is not to complete Capital’s mission when Capitalism cannot, not to "progress" further down Capital's road, but to throw out the whole thing. Understand that it would mean our annihilation, and take back the wheel of society as humans, consciously organizing production according to our will instead of the impersonal whims of the market God.

We should accept that this sort of “Communism”, not Post-Capitalism but human self determination, will not nearly measure up to Capitalism if measured by Capital’s metrics. It will doubtlessly not be as wildly innovative, nor as productive and will not “revolutionize” society constantly as Capital does. There is no other motor for this kind of “progress” but Capitalism, and this dynamistic acceleration exists for Capital’s benefit, not ours. The only characteristic that I can say for certain about this “Communism” is that it will be a process that is not ruled by the market, but rather by some form of conscious human will directed towards some sort of conscious human need. Either that, or it would mean the end of "society" as a whole.

R: 3 / I: 2
anyone got a link to the "post-left theory generator"? it was a script hosted on github i think that generates the kind of purple prose typical of post-left/insurrectionary anarchist pamphlets

R: 3 / I: 0
It's never happening, is it? I lost all hope today.

R: 44 / I: 13
I am a marxist that became nazbol after reading most of marxes works

Do I fit in here? I am not just a nationalist tankie, I consider myself post left.

R: 7 / I: 2
Me and the rest of the black community are protesting because the police are a colonialist occupying force. I don't give a FUCK about white people who get killed by their own police. They can take that up with white colonialist power, after all, they are citizens, servants and benefices of the colonialist system. You cannot ask black people to care about white people shot by the police anymore than you can ask us to care about white rape "victims". They already have white power backing them up. They are the oppressor class and I don't give a fuck about the the internal conflict in the white oppressor class. Its strictly secondary to the anti-colonialist class war between the two real classes, white people and black people.

R: 17 / I: 7
Do anarchists still exist? It seems like every time I talk to someone who claims to be anarchist online they turn out to be a Marxist who is just too ashamed of tankies to call themselves a Marxist. Do actual anarchists still exist?

R: 6 / I: 1

How did the Belarusians come to rebellion against the dictatorship

An anarchist account of what lead to the current protests in Belarus: https://enoughisenough14.org/2020/08/11/how-did-the-belarusians-come-to-rebellion-against-the-dictatorship/

R: 11 / I: 3

Traduções Anarquistas

I think some people here maybe already know, about this project of mine with some anarchists friends of my region. So who we are and what are our goals for those who don't know us:
> We are anarchists working on translating some basic anarchist and post-left anarchy works into Portuguese for better accessibility and study.
> We are also thinking in creating a website for sharing our translations and where other anarchists can submit theirs so these works can be freely distributed around.
> If the project succeeds and we gain some attention, we are planning in creating after the quarantine anarchist reading clubs so maybe some anarchist action starts to grow here

Some of the works that we are prioritizing to translate before the Corona-virus epidemic ends:
> Anarchy by Errico Malatesta (Draft for almost all chapters are already done, our estimates for completing it are in about 2 weeks or less)
> Anarchy after Leftism
> The abolition of work
> Toward the creative nothing
> Illegalism why pay for a revolution on the installment plan when you can steal on
> Desert
> Against organizationalism anarchism as both theory and critique of organization
> Post-left anarchy, leaving the left behind

So these are our main ideas and projects, any thoughts on our work?

R: 2 / I: 0

System Fail #2: An Airborne Virus Called Freedom

https://sub.media/video/system-fail-2-an-airborne-virus-called-freedom/
A look at the social and economic devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, with a specific focus on the incompetent state responses of the UK, Brazil and the United States.

Featuring an interview with anarchist writer Peter Gelderloos, author of Diagostic of the Future: Between the Crisis of Capitalism and the Crisis of Democracy.

R: 8 / I: 3

coping with disability

I have become disabled due to antibiotics side effects and can no longer perform any of my previous hobbies/jobs (music and programming)
How do you cope with permanently losing certain bodily functions?

R: 1 / I: 0

Better Never To Have Been by David Benatar

Discuss. He has other interesting stuff too.

http://93.174.95.27/search.php?req=david+benatar+&lg_topic=libgen&open=0&view=simple&res=25&phrase=1&column=def

R: 14 / I: 3

philip mainlander general

a tread meant for questions, discussion and praise for this fascinating figure

i have a question myself

so i am reading mutual aid right now, and in the section talking about mutual aid by "barbarians" i noticed it seems that communal behavior used to be more common back then, communal behavior seems to be even more common by "savage" societies, it seems society is more isolated then ever before, Philip mainlander talked about how universe was killing itself by splitting more and more, beginning as a singularity (god) until it realized it needed to die, for non existence is better then existence, but because it was god it was unable to kill himself, so it started splitting itself, becoming more and more isolated and divided, so that way it could die, so our universe is essentially the rotting corpse of god, if we accept mainlander's theory could the increasing isolation of our society be seen as a side effect of god's suicide? are there more ways of combining mainlander's and anarchist theory?

R: 3 / I: 0
DECAYING BODY OF GOD

https://youtu.be/nnJmA9_dkP0

R: 9 / I: 1

missed connections

New to the post-left here. If you are one of the two galaxy-brain post-left illegalists that I bonded with during the riots, you have my info, or I have contacted you, so get in touch because I want to escape.

R: 4 / I: 2
Be Gay Do Crime

R: 26 / I: 11
Schizonihilist anon from /leftypol/ here. The board has finally banned all Tor exit nodes, so I am unable to reply to anyone there anymore and can no longer even alert anyone there of this post. If you wish to continue conversation with me, or want me to respond to something from /leftypol/, post or cross-link it here and I will do my best to oblige. Alternatively, if you are reading and care to inform /leftypol/ of my departure, please do. I no longer can. Then again, given I am universally hated on /leftypol/, maybe no one will even notice and it is better they never know.

I feel sorry for those who genuinely wanted a response from me and asked for theory recommendations, but who will now never get any unless they see this post. There's nothing more I can do about it now, though.

R: 8 / I: 0

Foucault and sexual liberation

Was Foucault right when he critiqued the "repressive hypothesis" and claimed that sexual liberation was just a different form of power's "deployment of sexuality"? This seems to me a step back from the Situationists and their fight against the colonisation of life by the commodity. Or was the Situationists' idea of an un-alienated life and sexuality an illusion all along? And if yes, is there really no way out of power? Is power even real anymore or just another part of the simulacrum like Baudrillard claimed? I'm having difficulties wrapping my head around all these levels of critique and meta-critique.

R: 6 / I: 2
woaaaaaaah im so edgy xdddd im depressed and have austinsim uhhhhhhh im so edgy i jack off to hentai to cope with my depression uhhh oh god im so horny im horny all the time and my parents dont like me i spend all my time wallowing in my own misery with muh dark edgy vibes xd and jack off to hentai cuz im depressed lmao i also like to call popel faggots and niggers because yelling racial slurs online fill the gap in my soul cuz im so edgy im like those goth kids even though i really hate them woah im so sad and depressed and edgy i use it as an online person to get my dick really going after jacking off to hentai for the 18th time today i have depression and am so edgy uhh im empty inside i just wanna die i lay on my bed crying tears of blood because im so edgy im like those edgy anime boys who wear all that tech gear and shit lol lmao dude im horny lmao im empty inside i feel nothing but pain and misery every day when i wake up i feel immense pain everywhere because i am an autistic edgelord who lives with my parents and doesnt have a gf because im so fucking whiny but thats ok because i
love manipulating my depression to get that edgy depressed vibe lmao od im alone empty sad and dead i just want to die please end it the pain is unbearable xddddddddddddddddddd nigger lol i said the n word plz dont delete oh god no mods plz dont delete get your hands away from me please dont rape me please

R: 8 / I: 3
to the comrade who is currently fighting the tankies in the pomo thread over on /leftypol/, i just wanted to say your efforts are appreciated
i personally just don't have the patience or eloquence to have a serious discussion in the ideological morass of what /leftypol/ has become
i'm sure others feel the same way

R: 2 / I: 0

System Fail #01: Riots Across America

https://sub.media/video/system-fail-01-riots-across-america/
The pilot episode of subMedia’s brand new show, System Fail, looks at the incendiary riots that have swept across the United States in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, and the state’s desperate attempts to bring things back under control.

Featuring an interview with Oluchi Omeoga, co-founder and core organizer of the Black Visions Collective and Reclaim the Block.

R: 8 / I: 1

Illegalism

Just want to know what /dead/ thinks of the Bonnot Gang

R: 3 / I: 1

Is n1x even dead alive or dead dead?

> subject

R: 5 / I: 1

Anarchist news?

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

R: 34 / I: 3

Ecological collapse

Is there still any point to green politics or should we just prepare for the worst?

R: 1 / I: 1

Civil war?

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

R: 4 / I: 2
fuck mods

R: 10 / I: 1

Is the self a spook?

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 in Some Thoughts on the Creative Nothing and some of the unique ones I have met over the years; they seem to overwhelmingly conclude that Stirner's "egoism" was a polemical parody and that Stirner was never seriously an egoist, at least not in the usual sense of the word, having rejected in so many words the ego itself as just another phantasm of the mind. Yet Stirner attributes this notion of the ego as "the spook of all spooks" to Hess and never directly affirms this critique of the self. Even when the florid satire of the original work is toned down and Stirner speaks more directly in Stirner's Critics, he seems to be critiquing his critics by indirectly agreeing with their critiques of the unique and pointing to his original work as proof of that agreement.

But I still meet "egoists" who idolize Stirner but vulgarize his critiques, as if they read Stirner through Ayn Rand, lauding selfishness while condemning any enlightenment of their self-interest. And it makes me wonder if this seemingly heterodox reading of Stirner attributes more to him than is due.

Ultimately, I do not care so much whether Stirner believed the self / ego to be a spook. I do not need his endorsement to believe that myself. I would just like to think Stirner had that depth and self-critical capacity, and that his early critics were wrong to critique Stirner for believing that the ego itself was not slain by his own critique. If I am wrong, then so be it; I have then taken Stirner's own critique radically further than even he had. But I do not think I am.

How do you read Stirner? Do you really think he was so naïve as to have been this vulnerable to immanent critique? Or was he just being his usual coy, circumlocutory self even on the spookiness of the self? Or do you even defend a reading of Stirner that affirms the self / ego as somehow not spooky?

R: 11 / I: 0

Alternate reading of Mayan calendar suggests end of the world is next week

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

R: 5 / I: 2
tell me about your everyday life

R: 3 / I: 1

Let. Me. Die.

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

R: 5 / I: 1
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?

R: 7 / I: 1

The biggest spook of them all.

> 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?

R: 2 / I: 0

When you so dead that you won't even react to the board actually becoming dead now

Bottom text

R: 2 / I: 0
What's the best board on bunkerchan and why is it /dead/?

R: 22 / I: 8

defend /dead/

They want to shut this place down. I don't post here as often as I should maybe but that doesn't mean I don't want this place to exist.Who here wants to see this place stay?

R: 0 / I: 0

Proposal for merger of /dead/, /tech/, and /e/ into single /hobby/ or /leftyhobby/ board

Hello all, I am proposing a vote that might affect the future of this board, please let your thoughts me known in this topic https://bunkerchan.xyz/gulag/res/2299.htmland not in replies to this post. Thank you, have a nice day.

R: 25 / I: 0
is anyone here actually post-left?

R: 12 / I: 1

Anne Frank

Anne Frank is cute

R: 1 / I: 0
What would be my… how should I call it, spontaneous attitude towards the universe? It’s a very dark one. The first thesis would have been a kind of total vanity: there is nothing, basically. I mean it quite literally,like… ultimately…there are just some fragments, some vanishing things. If you look at the universe, it’s one big void. But then how do things emerge? Here, I feel a kind of spontaneous affinity with quantum physics, where, you know,the idea there is that universe is a void,but a kind of a positively charged void. And then particular things appear when the balance of the void is disturbed. And I like this idea of spontaneous very much that the fact that it’s just not nothing…　Things are out there.　It means something went terribly wrong…　that what we call creation is a kind of a cosmic imbalance, cosmic catastrophe,　that things exist by mistake. And I’m even ready to go to the end and to claim that the only way to counteract it is to assume the mistake and go to the end. And we have a name for this. It’s called love. Isn’t love precisely this kind of a cosmic imbalance?I was always disgusted with this notion of “I love the world,” universal love. I don’t like the world. I don’t know how… Basically, I’m somewhere in between “I hate the world” or “I’m indifferent towards it.” But the whole of reality, it’s just it. It’s stupid. It is out there. I don’t care about it.

R: 14 / I: 8
What is the purpose of this board anyway?

R: 0 / I: 0
always remember to renew your berliner coupon

R: 1 / I: 0

RIP Magdalen Berns, 1983-2019

>Magdalen was a great fighter for the rights of women in general and lesbian women in particular, a defender of science and rationalism and someone who hated social injustice and had an anti-capitalist consciousness. She also hated fakery and hypocrisy – and was a staunch opponent of these across the left.https://rdln.wordpress.com/2019/09/14/magdalen-burns-1983-2019-fighter-for-womens-liberation/

R: 4 / I: 0

Dog Problem

So my neighbors got a dog again. Don't get me wrong, I like dogs, but my neighbors really shouldnt have any to begin.I said again because a few years ago they already had one. A big golden retriever. They never were able to get the dog under control. But what's even worse, once they got a child, they lost all interest in dog in put him in a small cage in the back of their garden. He stayed there all day except for like 2 30 minute walks a day. That's not a life for such a big dog. Not that I really cared or did anything about it, but it irritated me when I heard him barking for hours on end. After living a long life in captivity, the dog died however some 3 years ago. (The children also never gave a fuck about him btw.)Some 3 weeks I'm sitting in my small garden, enjoying the sun and the feeling of just having quit a job, while a white puppy runs into my garden and violates my N.A.P. Of course this was the first time, not really a problem, but that kept happening over the next few days. But then the most outrages aggression imaginable took place.I share my home withy my best comrade, Maxchen. He is a now about 18 yo (I guess, dont really know since I found him) grizzled cat. Needless to say, he doesnt need the stress of some punk ass bitch dog running around, chasing him and eating his food, because THATS WHAT HAPPENED.It should be obvious that dogs, blindly following authority, are inherently anti-revolutionay while cats are mutualists, making the cat more valuable than dog (even without considering that the cat is my property while the dog isnt and therefore also not for me to care for). So the dog got to go.I don't wanna hurt him, but I'm thinking of putting something into my cats footbowl outside (wile taking my cat in) that tasted disgusting to dogs or is maybe hard to digest? That way he would learn the correct behaviour and if not, start shitting waterfalls, giving my neighbors good reason to give him away and sparring him the cage.Now, any idea what could work in this direction and how I could acquire it?

R: 0 / I: 0
CARI AMICI SOLDATI,I TEMPI DELLA PACESONOPASSATI

R: 5 / I: 1
I hate "I grew in a communist country and I hate communism" fags. GRAHHHHHHH

R: 1 / I: 1

IM DEAD

On the inside and on the outside and any thing around me is dead.

R: 4 / I: 0

BPA causes autism

It's transgenerational, too. How fucked are we?

R: 2 / I: 2
'People': *just want to exist*'Royalty and clergy': Hey you people, you're going to now work for us, you'll give us most of your crop and every time we want to go to war you'll give us your able-bodied men. In return we won't slaughter you like pigs where you stand.'Landed elite and the bourgeoisie': Enough! *kill the royalty*'People': We're free!'Landed elite and the bourgeoisie': Yes, you're free to continue your obligations to the crown, except we'll be the recipients.'People': Huh?'Landed elite and the bourgeoisie': But don't worry, here's some wool over your eyes.]'People': Wow thanks! We truly are free.Rosseau: iT's ThE sOcIaL cOnTrAcT !

R: 2 / I: 0
N1x aka nyxland is a massive nigger and/or faggot

R: 6 / I: 0
why live?

R: 1 / I: 0
Space give me back board ownership you massive faggot

R: 2 / I: 1

Why is dead, dead?

No really, what is a point of this board?

R: 1 / I: 1
Do you think that humanity will ever get communism before we fuck ourselves to death? Capitalism leads to communism the more and more the technological conditions of communism are built by capitalism. It also leads to catastrophic climate change and greatly increased ability of the bourgeoisie to completely suck the value and life of the worker in the most vampire-like fashion. What do you we think we get to first, the end or communism.

R: 0 / I: 0
finally, an anarchist board.

R: 0 / I: 0
Give a non-moralist criticism of moralism.Give me a non-spooky criticism of anti-solipsism and anti-egoism.Protip: You can't.Self-interest, egoism, anti-realism and consecuentialism are inherently moralist and spooky, try harder

R: 4 / I: 2
>'It is a law of pride in this world>To believe in the creatures, to forget God, >Overthrow by diseases, and old age,>Destruction of the soul through deception.

R: 1 / I: 0
Whats your opinion on bonano and his insurectionarry anarchism??

R: 0 / I: 0
Whats your opinion on bonano and his insurectionarry anarchism??

R: 7 / I: 2
how do you beat the demiurge?

R: 1 / I: 0
Is this the anarchist board of bunkerchan? Can it be? If not is thos anarchist friendly?

R: 0 / I: 0

Fact

Piracy is praxis

R: 0 / I: 0
What do you think of Friendship as a Form of Life? It is very post-left, I find.https://friendship-as-a-form-of-life.tumblr.com/

R: 0 / I: 0
CUT ME INTO PIECES. THIS IS MY LAST RESORT!

R: 18 / I: 2
What brings you here today?

R: 0 / I: 0
happy halloween /dead/

R: 7 / I: 1
i wanna die

R: 2 / I: 2
hahahaahahahahahajskadshahwhahhashhahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahshadhajskhdakhfoqewhfahkshfkahshahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaahI'M POSTING ON YOUR BOARD NERD WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT NOW NERDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD ? xdddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxdalso >no tank flag

R: 9 / I: 0
Is Anarcha-Feminism post-left? I see it on a lot of (the few) post-left boards but don't see how it's post left. Is this a joke?

R: 5 / I: 1
Is misantrophy left-wing or right-wing?

R: 0 / I: 0

DonKim apocaplyptic totalitarian communism

Trump likes the idea of a big state but under the control of big business this is non-to-far from kimean korea so what do you reckon will come of these meetings??

R: 2 / I: 0
Why does this board CSS look like my depressive episodes?It's a bit triggering.

R: 6 / I: 0
The cancer has been resected and lives at 0ch. Delete this human waste.

R: 31 / I: 3
asked this on /leftypol/ and naturally i got no discussionare there any non-moralist arguments against pedophilia?

R: 0 / I: 0
It seems that /leftypol/ has finally found it's way to the board it deserves.If only you weren't too late to witness /dead/.

R: 1 / I: 0
This board is comfy. It warms my aching bones.Why is a board like /dead/ the only thing that made me feel today?

R: 2 / I: 0
make /dead/ great again

R: 4 / I: 2
make /dead/ great again

R: 3 / I: 0
Is /dead/… dead?

R: 4 / I: 1
I'll just leave this here to be quite honest family.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HSusGdNUgk

R: 6 / I: 3
I claim this board in the name of the great wizard, Hegel. I dare you skeletons and spooks to stop us! Death? We live in and through death eternally!

R: 17 / I: 2
If the universe is materialistic, why don't we feel at home here?

R: 5 / I: 2
Words cannot express my angush rn.

R: 0 / I: 0
THE PORP MUST FLOW!

R: 0 / I: 0
What do you guys think of the supreme skeleton, Skull Knight?

R: 5 / I: 3
If global capitalism is ever destroyed by the proletariat(which with the rate we're making our own world uninhabitable we'll probably go extinct before that happens) I'd be fine with being put up against the wall or getting guillotined.I get told this a lot, that since I've been born into economic privilege I shouldn't support gommunism because I'd be killed for no other reason than having a petty bourgoise family. But assuming this is true I'd be just fine with that. Life feels like torture,insomnia,manic episodes, depression,trying to avoid obligations, feeling like shit every day no matter what I do,social isolation, watching our natural world be destroyed. And I know that life isn't going to get any better, so I see very little reason to even bother with going on. In my head I was going to write something much better than that, but when your thought process is an incoherent fog it's hard to actually communicate your thoughts into anything of quality. Thread theme song: Mantits - Let Me Fucking Die https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ60al8xXoA&nohtml5=False

R: 2 / I: 0

What?

I'm gone for two weeks and suddenly this board exists and we're at war with wheelchan.I've never even heard of "post-leftism". What the fuck are you people?

R: 5 / I: 3

Alain Badiou: Down with Death!

>So we could say that nihilism is the negative subjectivation of finitude; it is fundamentally the organised or anarchic (either is possible) consciousness that because we die, nothing is important. The most classic figure of nihilism is the statement that everything is devalued, de-symbolised and untenable in the face of death. It is an equalisation of the totality of everything that could be valued, faced with the radical ontological finitude that death represents. This question of the relation between nihilism and values is, as you know, a central question in Nietzsche’s philosophy, which takes up this theme of nihilism in order to make a very important diagnostic and critical use of it.http://mariborchan.si/text/articles/alain-badiou/down-with-death/

R: 7 / I: 1
ITT we talk about how petty-bourgeois or full on capitalist we used to be.syndicalism will allow us to continue our consumption and continue the spectacle (me a few years ago)

R: 11 / I: 4
Does Post Left Anarchism have any direct relation with Anarcho-Nihilism?

R: 21 / I: 5
n1x, you're a huge faggot. You'll also love this site: http://www.theunterrified.com/#!10-reasons-anarchism-is-dead-and-should-be-buried/dgpen/565a065a0cf277f55b320534

R: 26 / I: 21
post you irl

R: 26 / I: 18
ITT: how you imagine /dead/ BO looks IRL

R: 8 / I: 2
>when your ego is so inflated it needs its own board that still can't contain itwew

R: 28 / I: 19

Banners n 'shit

Post yr banners for the board, and also flags if you have any suggestions. I'm going to be stealing more flags from /leftypol/ but if you have any requests post them here.Banner size is 300x100 and must be under 200KB