New Bunkermag Article

i hope this magazine is not related to the fbi admins of bunkerchan.

100% is, and the fact that this is pinned suggests that one of them or several of them are on the mod team now.

I don't go on bunkerchan or the irc. The name is just a bunker joke.

...

...

i agree memes are le epic for the win :-)

Why do you feel the need to waste my time explaining concepts that don't need explaining?

Example instead of saying a big paragraph of "positive power doesn't accumulate blah blah blah" you could've gone straight to the point and said 'the foreman does this but positive power doesn't accumulate, whereas the banks blah blah blah…"

You bored me to death, I'm not even sure if this goes anywhere and none of these long-winded definitions were really required.

OK, I stopped being lazy and read the last two paragraphs lol. You can't declare that you've explained how the state functions based on your theory, or any theory. You need material evidence. This is "basic leftism written for leftists" it has no chance to gain any sort of appeal or readability to a general public. You might as well just become a cheerleader at this point. I want to see ;macro-parasitism' inj action, I want to know why your perspective is real and interesting.

He said chan, not Reddit.

All that dumb bullshit started on 4chan though. It only became unacceptable once the normalfags appropriated it.

Le has always been a reddit thing.

But chans use le sarcastically to make fun of someone though

Is the author aware that anarchists exist and currently dominate the so called left?

Commies are pretty much irrelevant tbh

Sure they do mate.

Try and stop me, I'll fooking fight you mate.

Best article on Bunkermag so far. Really good writing. No familiarity with Hegel or whatever required. No in-jokes or obscure historical references. Everybody can read it, no big words aside from the anima & animus bit (still, one can figure out it refers to female and male archetypes just from the context). Oh, and another minor thing: "and etc." is like saying LCD display. But these tiny thingies aside, it's pretty much perfect.

I hope others emulate the style. I can't hammer on this point enough: Talk in a way that people outside of your scene/subculture/academic niche understand what you are saying. Another rare example of this clarity in lefty writing is this piece: Origins of the police by David Whitehouse libcom.org/history/origins-police-david-whitehouse

...

...

hmmm

The lack of references for the claims it makes is bothering me.

Also, my issues with it.

the two statements are contradictory, and according to Foucault power is relative, so it cannot be a summation.

Also, it seems to confuse that productive capacity is the same as power, or both are correlative. Again, this seems to arise because power is defined as something inherent and not as a relation.

Childish moralizing. You cannot define good and evil as some tendency of something to accumulate or not. Again, there are no references as to why you would even make this claim. Is this based on a Christian ethics or what?

The rest of the article seems to be based on these excellent premises. I didn't read it completely.

...

I'm defining power in the same way as productive capacity just expanding the definition to include 'all actions' not just ones that lead directly to productive capacity. Corps also spend a lot of energy attempting to control people's consumptive and other behaviors and that's meaningful to talk about. Benevolent here just means 'spread evenly' among participating members or w/e social group. It's based on fairness-ethic I guess, if your class makes a bunch of cookies and you share them out instead of hoarding them all for yourself you are more 'benevolent'. Also you can sum anything as long as you can put a number to it.

Sure I can, you're a 4

Has a lot of spooks.

that's a subjective assessment, and totally irrelevant to whether power is relative or constitutive.

relative to what? constitutive of what?

So it has no actual content to think about and learn from. Sweet!

You should consider submitting

AW is a poseur who frequently lies about what he has read. He's been debunked numerous times on here. What he says on various accounts (reddit, goodreads, etc) is inconsistent. He claims on one account to have read X and asks on another beginner questions about the same thing.

He doesn't sound very trustworthy

ayy root beer lmao

There was a time when article like this: bunkermag.org/moderate-politics-persecution-complex/ were posted and the writing appeared subversive to general left wing assumptions, but this article and much of the recent stuff has just been more eloquent rewordings of and minor elaborations on things we already understand to be the way they are.

t. The Zizek fanatic who does nothing but reword articles from lacan.com

OK, I'm reading the article recommended by the leftcom.
If you want articles going back to this "quality" I think I stand with the current revionist line, thank you.

bump

Yo nice memes guys but are any of you aware of why there's been such a drop in articles and actual varied authors in general? The website's writers always wrote non-profit so did everyone just all at once decide to fuck off, or?

No idea what you mean. Speak English please.

Merely a 3rd sentence and I already stumble upon historical illiteracy. Never in the history of mankind the military was so centralized and in control of the state as it is today, pre 18th century warfare relied almost entirely of mercenaries

From the article:
>the age of fascism and great nationalist movements when the state was considered synonymous with industry and authority but in the modern age
That's the reference point of the then-and-now comparison. Would you say that it is not true that mercenaries play a bigger role today than in the years leading up to WWII?

Related question: When was the last time the US officially declared a war?