How does Zig Forums respond?

How does Zig Forums respond?

Attached: spooped.png (944x518, 103.5K)

This is a strawman as nowhere does Stirner claim that capitalist exploitation is "wrong," merely that it "is" and one would do better to merely realize their own exploitation to either entirely escape it or benefit from the system of exploitation in some way or another

Sage for nonsense

Exploitation under capitalism is not wrong, it is simply in my self-interest to end an economic system in which I am exploited.

boom! problem solved

What if you could love being exploited by taking a few magic surplus pills with nanobots inside?
Then wouldn't it be in your best interest to hop in the experience machine instead?

Attached: communism.jpg (720x707, 66.1K)

I'm asking you why wouldn't you sell all your friends out for agent Smith to plug you back in?

low energy! sad!

So why aren't you running a few hundred of your worker-owned co-ops if it's that easy?

Attached: -GTGebzP_400x400.jpg (400x400, 27.31K)


That's easy. Just take out a loan, and the superior system of communism will surely make all the money back in no time, with employees all deciding on how to run your business.
Then after dividing all the money you've made equally among yourselves, you can each start your own lending agencies, charging 0% interest for people starting their own commie co-ops.
The capitalist machine will be taken down overnight.

it's not that easy to get this type of loan, especially if you're creating a new firm.

because co-ops do not challenge the fundamental logic of the capitalist system. The market is designed that any "ethical" business will eventually be forced to exploit people for profits or go bankrupt.

It is, actually, if you've actually put the effort into it. But if we start getting into the details of how to set up a business, commies just tend to zone out and go "m…muh exploitation".
First and foremost, they want to know where the money is going to, in a way that allows you to pay them back with interest. That means you can't just waltz in and go "I wanna make teacups, give me money lol".

lel. Apply for a loan that a fraction of the applicants get, and then operate an enterprise that ultimately belongs to the bank making you effectively an employee.

Attached: 1bb03eb657147319cb92f8315b2bff7327e90b8768adc91d7db980780d896dd6.jpg (720x720, 75.19K)

Attached: 2ef3315177f8f8bf135a5b2e0b7e2c68.png (414x459, 209.7K)


I dare you to try it, fuckboi.
Not even liberals or democrats can be bothered to so much as dogwhistle their support of your failed ideology.

Attached: 35.png (300x300, 95.7K)

Trouble following arguments? Just post memes!

Attached: d2bc8db6935fdb8f742c328814323b9587b90ccadb5c1691555f81da488bc365.jpg (407x655, 68.07K)

Imagine not reading the news this hard

Are you bourgeois?


Your loss

Oh, I'm sorry, it's okay because it's the "People's Worker Party of Working People" that's throwing everyone in gulags.

Attached: communism part 2.png (1191x1229, 404.08K)

Fuck off, Bakunin

It’s okay, user. Solzhenitsyn, the Gulag man himself got cancer at a gulag and they actually treated it for him yet he was still butthurt. Can’t please them all

I do what i want because I want to. People shouldn't do X for spooks….
Society doesn't exist. Now let me tell you about society…

Holy fuck what a terrible meme that ruined the punchline. The original was better.

Because capitalism is a detriment to my self interests

Attached: 6c387594521d11afcaff46c121476adc78aaa929f42f89f45c7c362612386c03.jpg (250x240, 3.93K)

the one on the left spooks enough egoists as it is. who says rape is immoral?

This image is a classic example of ancap/libertarian ignorance about their opposition. It operates a literal interpretation of an simplified criticism we level at capitalists. The point isn't that the (small) capitalist does literally no work and deserves nothing, but that the source of their profits, therefore most of their wealth, comes not from whatever managerial, analytical, and/or hands on work they do for the business, but from the legal legitimization of their monopolized control, their ownership, and that this legitimization of monopolistic control and entitlement to profits that comes from it not only denies the moral entitlement to part of the profits of others who work in the business, but also gives the capitalist an exploitative control over the lives of workers.

If I want to be nitpicky, I could point out the image has a comically idealized vision of a small entrepreneur. Specifically, new business owners rarely analyze market trends except in a somewhat basic ways. The only leg you could potentially stand on is the 'risk' argument, which is whole other, massive philosophical debate itself.

That's because your criticism is overly simplistic. If Marx actually wanted to be taken seriously, he would have focused on "wealth", not "who owns le means of production", because those two things weren't 1:1 in his day, and are hilariously inaccurate now. The wealthiest people today don't "own means of production", they just trade miniscule shares from thousands of companies and crash entire economies by converting their wealth to different currencies.

The criticism is still legitimate because owning means of production either wholly, or partially through shares, was and is still the primary source of personal wealth for the bourgeoisie. After all, shares are, in the majority of cases, just a partial form of ownership, and while the shares they trade at any given moment are minuscule, the uber-wealthy still often own a significant, in many cases the largest, and even majority, percentage of shares in one or more businesses of varying sizes, which allows them the same sort of siphoning of profits and control over livelihoods that they had in the 19th century. Keep in mind hired executives frequently become major shareholders of the corporations they head.

The dominance of the stock market and international flow and trade of goods and capital enabled by globalization and digitization is an important development that warrants further scrutinizing, despite there already being much of it. I would say the 19th century leftist criticisms of capital by Marx and others has merely become incomplete, rather than wholly outdated, because of the new institutions and phenomena you point out. In the end though, the dynamics and issues between the classes I pointed out in my last post are still the same, and capital still behaves much like it did during the industrial era, even if it does have new tricks.

And this is class consciousness

And this is a shit meme.

Who says murdering your rapist is wrong?
Human nature is mostly malleable.

The worker shouldn't have to give his services to some guy at the top who owns a factory, he should be able to own the tools himself, create the goods he wants, and receive all the profits for his labor instead of only a pittance.

This is true. While the meme is absolute garbage misunderstanding of Stirner's worldview, if we are to begin by stating that morality is a phantom, what is this "should" based upon ? How is it determined ? I could equally say "humans should not act upon self-interest" and it would have the same weight without qualification.

Can anyone answer this ?

how does stirner answer the is ought problem in philosophy?

Suppose that one agree with him that capitalism is exploitative, why should anyone do anything about it?

who says murdering a person who murdered a rapist is wrong? chasing your tail must be fun.

you're like a baby

Attached: maxstirner on capitalism.png (600x600 33.18 KB, 71.74K)

stirner could work for a capitalist and save money and then start his own business.

stirner is ignoring that obvious alternative.

Yeah, I'll just save enough money to set up factories in Bangladesh to produce my clothes line or factories in China to produce my phones which will rival Apple, or hire Indian technicians to build an operating system to rival Microsoft, or several warehouses full of servers all around the world to rival Google. So easy !

yeah, it worked for china, mate. they are getting richer and richer.

First of all "China" is not a human being. Yes, the PRC as a country is getting richer and richer and naturally so, as capitalism has the function of being the facilitator of development on nation-states. However, if you actually spent even a few moments even talking to a Marxist instead of jacking off to the sound of your own voice, you'd realize that Marxian theory does not consider capitalism "bad." It is merely the successor to feudalism and is necessary to create conditions for the next stage in development (i.e. socialism) as feudalism had done for capitalism. The latter stages of capitalism (which we can see now) is global monopolies and lack of competition. But perhaps you're some kind of repressed manchild who thinks that, with all your economic wisdom, if "the state" is powerful/authoritarian enough it can somehow fix it. And I'm sure you'll be very successful in taking on Alphabet Inc, Microsoft, Apple, Exxon Mobil, Monsanto, BP, Amazon, AT&T, etc.

But go ahead and sit in your fantasy world where everyone is a small business owner and an individual may simply earn a little bit of money after working for a few years and set up their own business and happily compete with other small business owners. Swallow more dicks, cunt.

But that's literally what socialists believe, you utter retard.


Amazing how you managed to not actually refute anything, retard.

amazing how you managed to not actually put forth an argument, retard

Maybe read his book? He talks about it.

that questions answers itself by you know… looking at the huge ass wealth inequality outside…

Attached: maxstirner on capitalism.png (770x275, 33.18K)