/edgy/ general

Pls define this word for me idk what it means ;^)

I can't I'm lactose intolerant

post rare nechayevs

what about Jones?

ITT: Liberals.

acceptable

Sounds like me. How do I join? Is it just adding the flag, or do I need to read or do something first?

Eh, they are slightly less roleplayey than tankies, but yeah all ircfags are liberal roleplaying scum.
They should all be banned tbh.

i'm not even an ircfag tbh

You can believe in the negation of Capitalism and be a Liberal my dudes

Can't believe in the negation of Capitalism

Oops guess I proved u right :^)

"Anarcho"-Nilhist flag == Lying liberal arguing in bad faith. Make whatever claim you like, I will not believe if it comes from you.

I've read Blessed Is The Flame and it's a fucking fantastic introduction to the anarcho-nihilist tendency. Reading group soon famrade.

I also have Nihilist Communism and Attentat and have been reading through them a bit. So far I've been extremely impressed with Nihilist Communism. It's very theory-heavy, and makes use of communist theory very nicely in basically turning it against itself towards a negative dialectic. I think it'd be a good book to read after Blessed Is The Flame.

I've not read much of Attentat yet, but it's a good representative of the nihilist position and nihilist critique. One of the writers goes far enough to critique insurrectionary anarchism from a nihilist position, which was pretty impressive to me considering that insurrectionism and nihilism have a strong affinity. One of the conclusions the writers in Attentat make about the attentat itself in the post-Catalonia anarchist milieu is that without the possibility of success, we have to seriously question whether or not there is any good reason to continue to engage in violent insurgent acts that are likely to only maim or kill bystanders and accomplish nothing. Groups like Memento Mori and Individuals Tending Towards The Wild are good examples of this for me, because they quite literally are edgelords who ineptly bomb random shit. But I think this is more a problem with the anarchist milieu today and not a problem a priori with any potential acts of insurrection given the nihilist position that we cannot hope for success.

Like Attentat, I feel that Nihilist Communism tends towards a passive nihilism by basically concluding that there's no more reason to engage in revolutionary acts of pure negation than there is to not do so, and therefore we ought to do nothing. While I don't necessarily disagree with that analysis, I still think that Dupont's statements on class hatred should give us more than enough desire to nonetheless engage in pure negation no matter how hopeless they may be. If there's really no future, it seems like a given to me to choose the jouissance of active nihilism and pure negation over the flat-out boring waiting game of passive nihilism.

kys Prickly, I'm like the only IRCfag here and I barely post in #bunkerchan

...

pIRATE flag reporting in.

...

It never isn't amusing to me when someone posts this.

POST LEFT CONSPIRACY: EXPOSED

what do I do if I'm a nihilist but feel as though syndicalism is the right way forward in terms of abolishing private property?

...

I'm kinda ashamed fam

I'm not denying that I'm a dick. In fact, I'm pretty open about being a contrarian on this board. But the post I responded to before was literally

Literally why do you think that syndicalism can make that happen.

N1X is honestly my spiritual guru

You fucked up.

Also, I called you a liberal because your ideology is liberalism.

This conversation is at an end.

He seems to be a lot less liberal than the people screaming "IDDDDDPOL" at smoke and mirrors ten times a day, and the social democrats that actually post here.

Posadism is pretty nihilist no lie.

Solidarity famrade.

k, bye bitch

It's a straightforward solution to abolishing private industry. As in, get them unions of co-ops up and running and its smooth sailing till worker owned industry becomes the primary mode of production

And what happens when the State inevitably introduces new regulations to curtail the growing threat of worker-owned co-ops? And how are these co-ops going to compete with multinational corporations who will always be able to undercut you using cheap labor in third world countries?

That's where the general strikes come in. Have the union affiliates attack porky directly in his balls: the economy

I just want to get ate all day and care about nothing

surely you'll get desensitized to it eventually?

That still doesn't solve the problem of outsourcing. The only way that syndicalism as a programme could work is if you're somehow able to pull the third world up into the same modes of organization, and you'll still have to deal with the unions selling out to the bourgeois as has happened historically - and which is kind of not surprising if you're in agreement with Feral Faun that syndicalism reproduces bourgeois ideology.

No

I think that the problem with unions in the past has been that they were focused on getting involved in compromising with private industry. The new syndicalist movement should have a different goal entirely: use collectivized assets to create new leftist infrastructure. The goal should no longer be to compromise, but to overrun

And again, how is that going to be possible given what you'd be up against?

I also want to say that porky outsourcing will not be a problem, it'll widen the pool of labor available to worker owned industry, and with the funding of worker federations, people in 1st world regions would be more willing to seek 1st and 2nd sector jobs.

just do it. I mean, its LEAGUES more realistic than the stupid fantasy of other types of socialists, the fantasy that just sitting around sucking cock in a circle will achieve revolution which will magically free the proles

Solidarity can be a useful tool to help one achieve his selfish interests.
The ego should be free to do whatever it wants, even sacrifice itself if need be.

kek, good fucking luck having your nascent co-op movement convince a bunch of uneducated people in the third world whose languages you don't speak and whose cultures you don't know anything about and whose governments are run by corrupt fucks in bed with capitalists that they need to risk losing any income for themselves and their families to join your cause.

I very much agree. People who interpret Stirner from a strictly materialist standpoint are going to run into all sorts of problems whenever risking one's material well-being and health for a revolution comes up. And they're also interpreting him, a Hegelian, quite wrongly.

no, I mean, outsourcing would widen the labor pool in first world countries

I mostly agree with you, but let me just pose this: in my country in the 80s, Volkswagen had (lets estimate) almost 80.000 employed workers, and that was just one of the car industries (GM, Ford, M-Benz had huge numbers aswell). Strikes were frequent, the bargaining power tended mostly to the unions and so on.

Now, today the same company has from 5.000 to 6.000 workers. In the past few years, actually in the start of last year, thousands were laid off - even with the threat of a strike by the big union (which they carried out and did) - but it didn't change the decision of the company. And this happened this year too.

The industrial working population is being gutted, the unions do not have the same bargaining power they once had. They can do mostly nothing, in general.

This is exactly the point I'm making, although I'm using outsourcing as my main example since we're talking about trying to have a syndicalist movement in a first world country.

Worst-case scenario: The capitalists can just introduce automation and once again completely undercut the unions and co-ops.

I'm fully aware old syndicalist tactics wont work.
That's why I'm proposing something new:
use the assets of the unions to produce more co-ops.

I know, nox. But the outsourcing can occur from "third world" countries to other countries (even "first world" ones). Not only that, the problem itself is not even outsourcing per se, but actually that with the advance of techonology, certain positions occupied by workers in the productive process become obsolete. There is no more need for 80k people, because 5k people can produce the same (and even more) quantity of cars because of the advancements of technology.

Outsourcing has become an empty threat used by the bourgeoisie, for most part.

That could work. Although the current ideology is the "be your own employer" - ie. the entrepreneurship myth - almost overrules any co-op initiative.

That's what you're saying, but I still don't see how you plan to address the same problems that old syndicalism wasn't able to deal with. And let's not forget that we haven't even begun to touch on how these syndicalist co-ops, if they managed to scale up, would be able to remain non-hierarchical.

fresh shop

Stupid dumb Prickly scum

Convince me to embrace this ideology.

...

Fuck off m8

Are you a proletarian? That is, an industry worker whose job is a fundamental and necessary component to the functioning of capitalism?

Posadism is honestly nihilist as fuck.

...

What's yall's edgy stance on religion? We all know Rebel has taken the "edgy christian" route, but he aint nihilist.

Personally, I'm apatheistic. I thought I made it up, until I searched it immediately.

...

I love it

There needs to be a ''triggered' under this Alex Jones spaz outs.

I can't speak for the others ITT but I guess you could label me an apatheist as well.

Rebel is obnoxious about the Kukegaard shit, but he and Kierkegaard are actually quite annoyingly right about the importance that faith plays in our lives. None of us act based on pure rationality - this is a fact that we've known for quite awhile about people (the question of "what is rationality/logic?" is itself a complicated one that negates the possibility of us being "rational" in any way we can currently cash out). At every moment we're not dead, we are choosing affirm life - whether we like it (oh god how we don't) or not (preach it!) - and we affirm life in accordance with some narrative we make up about why we're alive. Even if we choose to commit suicide, we're affirming life, by implicitly valuing it as something worth ending.

This means to me that faith is inescapable, but our ability to have faith in something is dangerous. Which is why I'm a nihilist and don't believe in any kind of deity. I'm a nihilist because I don't believe that our narratives have any kind of "objective" reality. Capitalism is a complicated, monstrous logic that infests every facet of our lives, especially our narratives and "meanings". Maybe it's possible that we could be brought back from the dead when capital is annihilated, but I only choose to have faith in the creative passion for destruction towards the pure negation of the existent. Or, "nothing", in other words.

IMO, having faith in literally nothing is infinitely more deliciously ironic than choosing to superimpose this over a deity. And having faith in a deity is more dangerous, because it is necessary creating a positive claim about a void of meaning that you take faith in to save yourself from contradicting yourself any further.

Kind of a roundabout answer I guess, but it's not as simple a topic as "LOL GOD IS DEAD LOLOLOL" (especially for Nietzsche). I think that believing in a deity is ultimately needlessly dangerous though, and I see no reason to mirror it by being obsessed with disproving the unprovable. Kant was very right to say that God is one of thing that reason cannot possibly make any claims to, so it's not really our business to talk about it IMO.

Not real nihilism or post-leftism or anything, but it sure is edgy. Anyone else here feel like they're on the verge of going full /unabomber/?

...

I went from Southern Baptist < "Cultural Christian" < Fedora Tipper < Agnostic Atheist < Apatheist, personally.