So I was reading the mememan himself

So I was reading the mememan himself.
He often makes the point that nowadays, if classic religion has fallen, it has been replaced by the cult of "Man" as an ideal, and denounces it as another, more pernicious religion, which as invalid and debilitating for the Ego than Judaism, Christianity…

My question is then : where does respect for the unknown, the "Other" comes from in such a case ? It's not from an higher Morality, it's not because I respect him as a "Man", clearly, or a "human being", as the milkman is against that.

Of course, Stirner's philosophy makes any discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sexuality… moot ; but still, in such a philosophy, what else than the fear of being beaten up by Max and his friends prevents me from, say, taking his milk and killing him when he tries to stop me, or to bully him because I find [insert anything here] he does disgusting ?

tl;dr : where, if not from violence, do respect for others come from in Egoistical Anarchism ? If so, then how can you demand that someone respect your buddy's sexuality without invoking yet another ghost ?

Attached: Mememan.jpg (260x276, 23.83K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=L-FyBGWgOFA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Stirner has a version of the NAP which is basically the egoist union where all these fags exist in free association with one another he thinks man is at it's core a social animal except he views human relationships structured not by any particular authority from the state god or moral's but through self interest so being with other people is in your self interest and not being a cunt is in your self interest he's basically a social contract type without the belief in god's or anything like that

So it's the NAP, but out of self-interest/self-preservation rather than an ideological standpoint.
I see, make sense.

Isn't presuming humans as being social animals a spook by Stirner's own definition?

it's not a presumption but an observation that humans are social and seek to be in relationships socially involved and get various social boons from social interactions he goes off Aristotle that a man who isn't part of society is either a god or a beast

Raise a human in isolation and a cat in isolation and see which one is incapable of surviving once you let them loose.

Read the German Ideology

I'm almost done with "The Ego" but it seems like Stirner is against the idea of a "society" in general. While humans CAN gain from relationships and even society it's by no means a given, doesn't thinking such social contracts will benefit you "spooked"?

Not sure what you mean, if you throw an infant into the woods yes it will die, but so will a kitten.
Plenty of people have survived and even thrived in isolation. They wouldn't survive under a capitalist MoP if raised in isolation sure, but wouldn't conforming yourself to a system that is exploiting you "spooked"?

so we should all live like animals? Society forms out of social connections and bonds that create mental psychological imprints and development. The whole idea of spooks is just a justification for being a goddamn sociopath.

Stirner is post-leftist.Rather than let the workers own it, you let them operate it, since it would be a Stirnerite's property.
So in other words an ancap.

Stirner is good to despook yourself on many things but to buy his entire philosophy is just insane.

I don't have a brainlet image suitable enough for this post.

Great argument

Attached: 7eea5a751304f30e3da3060160f04c1fe075d7c5.png (944x518, 99.66K)

You can be against capitalist exploitation out of self intrest you know. Being a socialist out of morality is real fucking retarded.

Thats not what stirner says though.
Stirner says capitalist exploitation of the working class is not in the interest of the working class and thus they will revolt.
Most socialists are socialists because it benefits them, not because of muh morality.

What's his take on pedos?

Where's the proof?

Working class people are disproportionately socialist comprared to the bourgoiesie.

*Damage control intensifies*
Stirner was an infantile sociopath whose ideas are pathetic. Spooks exist, but Stirner takes this shit and turns it up to 11.

While Stirner may or may not have been against paedos, his own ideology fundamentally allows its existance.

Also being a socialist out of self-benefit is retarded, not to mention Lenin could easily have lived his comfortable life as a petite-bourgiosie son of a minor courtisan of the Czar, but he did not.

Stirners reasoning for revolt is so childishly over-simplified that its comedic, I don;t understand how people think his inane ideology is in any way sensible.

Attached: 24ffe139153f2920eb5986d941752c76ddb31a0a.jpg (847x666, 81.56K)

Keep being illiterate.

uhhuh, you sure understood stirner.

1. Lenin's brother was murdered for political reasons, he could not have led "an easy life"
2. Your retarded moralism proofs you haven't read marx, or think rationally in any sense of the word. Capitalism is inherently unstable and destructive, even the bourgoiesie are slaves to the system, although slaves with more agency. Fighting against capitalism is in the long term benefit of yourself as you remove the possibility of you falling from grace and living as a prole. But even without that realization, the same logic goes for slavery or any hierarchy. While hierarchy may benefit you now, its existence presents a chance that you will end up on the bottom of the hierarchy, so opposing it is still the most sensible and safe thing to do.
And then there is the fact that "exploitation is wrong" relies upon the axiom that you are being stolen from. If you only take a purely moralistic approach, there is no reason to assume this is true. Why is it not fair that the boss or king gets lots of money, hard mode: "cuz i say so" is not a valid answer if you dont want to play the self interest card.

You are the retard here. Im not even a stirnerite, the underclass always revolts because it benefits them to revolt, it benefits them not to be the underclass, not because, after long philosophical discussion, they arrived at a system of morality that concluded that slavery was in fact unfair.

Not to mention that trying to systemize morality is a retarded branch of philosophy as all axioms are unproven "common sense" personal opinions and thus all systems of morality and ethics is subjective and cannot be applied universally as truth

Attached: smug.png (313x325, 88.93K)

Kek, stay salty


That's not my argument, but if you want to build strawmen, that's not my problem, it's not like your defunct ideology would ever be realized.


Way to understate that, "In 1887 his brother Aleksandr was executed for being among those caught for plotting to kill Czar Alexander the III" That's not just 'political' reasons. Regardless there have been countless kings, courtisans and nobles who have lived their lives even when one or another member of their family is involved in political drama like that.

Read Hélène Carrère d'Encausse, "Lenine"

This isn't moralism, again that's not my argument you shitposting twat.


Rational thinking is a social illusion you dimwitted pseudo-intellectual, logical thinking on the other hand is not. Rationality is determined by social values and cultural development, which is why that which is rational to British society, may seem irrational to Chinese society and vice versa. Logic follows a concrete path of actions and consequences, reasons and balances etc. Something that you clearly don't understand.

Marx is not a moralist, but he isn't a "society isn't real" type of nihilistic faggot either. He used logical dialectical materialism to dictate his ideas, something continued by Lenin and other neo-marxists.


What does this have to do with anything? I understand the different types of slavery quite well, as per my own experience and the literature I have read. But hey being a smart-alek like you is fun, so why not digress unnecessarily to obfuscate your lack of a real argument. Courtisans did not live poorly, they had no reason to give a damn about the proles or to strive past the system. Lenin's actions were a personal choice based on what he saw and learned.

Attached: lenin bat.jpg (600x450, 29.1K)

That's not being socialist and in the end, it is far more egotistically beneficial, individually to exploit another, than to fight for over-all workers rights.
The whole point of socialism and the economic and social changes coming with it, is the over-all transition of humanity into it, as an inevitable progression as Marx firmly says.
because it allows for greater reorganisation of the world, democratically-so. We wish to reorganise the world to meet fluid and changing practical ends so that we can allow ourselves to expand the sphere of consumption and increase the scopes of the ends which we are able to achieve as a species. One person cannot think for everyone, though they are able to come to conclusions about others. No-one is a mind-reader and knowledge of the human social field which includes us ourselves is always incomplete, however scientifically-known, because when we learn about anything at all, we change ourselves and our own thoughts. We as rational subjects cannot be approximated as anything other than ourselves - not as biology, not as physical form but as DYNAMICS for which there is no evidence that there is any external causation from; there is no heteronymous control in the Kantian sense. Practically, we are self-causing and our thoughts upon their own self-reflections and self-approximations as we think about them are changed. We are not arguing for narrow moralities but rather what is central to them all. The ideological frameworks of such moralities are just the Ys of XY problems.

You are literally the most confused person on this thread. People at the top of a heirarchy are unlikely to topple unless another tries to take your place, which is a rare occurrence.

I'm not even going to argue this stupidity, see: youtube.com/watch?v=L-FyBGWgOFA

What is welfare capitalism, what is cognitive dissonance, what is social grooming… For one talking about reading, you sure haven't done a lot.

Except the theory of socialism came into being through philosophers and other intellectuals, and only after the moral problems of society were laid out clearly, did Revolutions begin to start. The French Revolution was prompted by the written works of philosophers like Voltaire. The working class is oppressed but also either unaware or too disorganized because of the problems of individuality taken too far, something promoted by capitalism AND Stirner.

No they aren't. This is like SJWs with their retarded, "gender is a spectrum" argument that holds no water.

Attached: triple facepalm.png (1920x1498, 509.54K)

Attached: mulletman.jpg (600x462, 51.41K)

Noargument.png
Muhboomers.jpg

Hello, it is me the author of this post. I have decided after some consideration that i take this post back. I'm truly sorry.

Whether I like them or not.

Attached: max stirner quote on love.png (1017x709, 75.92K)

Have you ever seen a house cat try to hunt? They are absolute trash at it. Cats learn to hunt from their mother.

From what I read, Stirner see's society as unavoidable, but appeals to society itself are often clumsy.

Not everyone is only restrained by muh morals from becoming a porky, dummy.

But not no-one, This is the exact problem of ancapistan; there will always be a few fuckers looking to exploit, and the "mechanisms of voluntaryism" are susceptible to manipulation and coercion because there is nothing backing it.


So his rambling about society being a spook is a pointless priori.


That's not what being raised in isolation means. It is a demonstrable fact that if a human child is raised without human interaction (of the type that constitutes a society) prior to the age of 5 or so, they become feral and will not be able to learn proper language and communication skills to become human beings, just slightly intelligent animals in human form. This also applies to animals like cats, but to a far lesser extent because they have animal instincts upon which they can act upon, meanwhile humans grew to develop past pure instinct-based actions, meaning in a human example they will be deficient.

It's quite amusing to see you salty stiernerites go and downvote stirner memes en masse on leftybooru, like the autists you are

Here's a hint. Anything can be a spook, not just society. If your society is trash because of capitalism, why would you want to maintain it in such a state? It's a matter of fixation, not what's inherent to it.

And then you repress them violently.
This isn't really against what I believe in.

people still use leftybooru?

Attached: max stirner strawman meme.png (800x450, 29.6K)

Society conditions us in certain way, it is only tolerable as obstacle to overcome and reclaim it's power over us. If you make yourself your own, society can no longer dominate and define your existence

Spotted a retard

Egoists are just a Ripoff of the UNDENIABLE SCIENCE of the R.N.M (Russian Nihilist Movement)

Is there any reason for an egoist to advocate for egoism? It's a pretty fringe ideology, and most self-professed egoists are probably edgy teenagers and losers. Wouldn't it be more logical for an egoist to pretend to belong to another ideology and simply utilize it for their own benefit?

Lol, that's retarded mate.

Why would I care about fringe ideologies when it comes to leftism? I'm already on the fringe to begin with. Also, do you really want to bring up edgy teenagers when it comes to anything to the left of sucdem? No, the logical course of action is to quit treating Stirner like the great Satan of the left, and taking what we can from him, while pointing out his blindspots. I already call myself a Marxist before I bring up Stirner, anyway.

Sargon tier

This tbh

Baloney
the collective minded good is also promoted in capitalist countries like japan. For them, the rigid hierarchy imposed on them is a form of collectivism. It's not a matter of "taking it too far", but servile obedience to a fixed idea of each.

All NAP is motivated by self-interest. The ideology is a secondary shell built up around the central idea of not wanting to be agressed against.

I really don't see Stirner advocating the Non-Aggression Principle as thought of by lolbertarians, as his assumption is that people WILL be faced with aggression, regardless of some arbitrary principles they share, as power dynamics demand it. Often times, they even justify their actions using the same principles. For example, the U.S. always claims to be defending themselves from such and such threat. They are in a constant state of being "agressed against". You really need to stretch it to make that analogy work, otherwise it falls apart.

holy shit it's all gone to hell

read hegel

This just means you don't have an argument without obfuscating your point with long winded philosophical masturbation.

Nah, he might have a point.
I assume he's referring to Hegelian concreteness.
I think Stirnerist should try and read Hegel, not because it will necessarily refute what they believe, but clarify some things.

You're obfuscating the fact that Stirner rejects society nearly wholesale, in lieu of pure self-interest, which is a shit basis of human progression as it relies on having absolute knowledge of the long and short term effects of your ego based actions.


1) No, that's not how a justice system should work
2) Why? They are simply acting upon their ego


Keep straw-manning what I said stirner-fag.


ad hominum garbage


That's not what was said at all you absolute ignoramus.


Except that you're wrong. The Japanese have a class-collaborationist mind-set where you are wholly subservient to your superiors and must wait your turn to progress. Every person out for their own INDIVIDUAL Benefit. They back-stab one another at places of work, telling their managers any little thing to get promoted and their colleagues demoted. This is not collective mindset at all.
You're like Ron Paul, who stated that Racism is a form of collectivism, a discount Hayek in other words.


I wasn't arguing moral basis of socialism you absolute tard, I was refuting the idea of complete rejection of morality because ethical morality is why exploitation is wrong. You may dislike it for personally affecting you, but that is more likely to evoke an individual attempt to break free, rather than a collective movement that is more likely to actually achieve something. This is like those idiots who claim that capitalism can build the same great things as socialism (such as space rockets n shit. Which is blatantly false because NASA adopted a planned system mirroring the soviet socialist system to compete, and Space X literally rides on the results of NASA, a collective effort where people set aside their individual egoisms. For that same reason the USSR, despite having NO economic base to speak of in 1921, managed to create the #4 industrial powerhouse in the world by 1938, and by 1945 was #2 ONLY because the USA was untouched by WW-2, while the USSR received the brunt of it. Absolute individualism will inevitably create discord, that will make it impossible to have large-scale voluntary collective systems that do not have capitalist hierarchies. It's like the utopianism of ancaps only doubled.

How am I strawmanning. wtf?
Those are literally your words lmao

Yeah it is. People we don't like, we incarcerate and put to death. We just do it with a shit ton of pretense

So? I am too.

see

Your pic post you absolute tard.
Stirner's quote, as I said, simply beats around the bush about the fact that society is an inevitable construct of humanity, and for society to function you are forced to give up some things. His argument with that sounds like a typical libertarian rant about how there should be a minimal government, ignoring the fact that rejection of capitalist society and CAPITALIST morals is possible without rejecting society or morality as a whole.
Labeling morality as stupid, is based on sheer ignorance of what defines morality. Without morality, we are no different to the meanest creature, and even then some. It is because of morality we condemn exploitation of the working class, and it is because of morality we condemn a murderer. Not because it affects us personally in any direct manner, but because it affects society.


That's not justice m8, that's miscarriage of justice. If you read carefully I stated, "that's not how a justice system SHOULD work".
Except that repression requires a state (which inevitably requires a society to do the repressing. Otherwise, that's not repression, that's just one person attacking another. Egoism is pure ideology, because while it attempts to claim that it presents a liberating alternative against capitalism, all it basically does is claim that hierarchies will be over-thrown by the exploited through their own egoism, which ignores how ignorant people will be too unaware to act, and that voluntary, ego-based, collective action has severe limits. Tell me how an egoist would lead men into battle against their enemies? Tell me how an egoist would organize industrialization. They cannot, Stirner's own attempt at a Milk-shop FAILED. For egoism to create anything like a space program, requires obfuscation and manipulation of people to try and convince them that it would appeal to their ego directly.
Yet look at the space-program in the USSR, or the atom bomb projects or any other number of such things, what motivated these people? The idea of helping their society improve, sometimes even at their own detriment.


See , , ,

No shit.
It's based on the collective good of Japanese society. They think the subservience is a form a self-oblation for the betterment of all.
Which shows the contradiction of so-called collectivist capitalist society. It's nothing but a fixation that's discarded when convenient. It's like you didn't even read the ego book.
It's not really either or. They are still motivated by a fixed idea of the collective, just like people are motivated by a fixed idea of the individual. "“The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.”

I like how left out the "For them" to make it seem like that's my opinion. Real sneaky. Also, white nationalist I've seen do occasionally see themselves as collectivist. The whole concept of the national body is because they see themselves as a collective entity. Ron Paul is stupid because he buys into the same dichotomous mode of thinking you have.

NO it isn't FFS, have you ever worked with Japanese. At home they may be fine (albeit rather closed off), but at work they are positively loathing of one another.

See that's the point I'm making, it's not genuine collectivism, its CLAIMED collectivism.
I have and when it's not unnecessarily being haughty and obscure about concepts, its promoting nigh sociopathic ideas.

No, they're motivated by their social grooming created by decades and decades of capitalism, which followed centuries of Japanese feudalism.

Those are un-developed naz-bols, who area literal meme here.

Which is why nationalism is condemned by socialists of almost all types, including M-Ls. The difference is that nationalities are developed not only by the idea of collective, but also by the cultural familiarity that created the nations in the first-place. Cultural familiarities that have rational reasons to exist, and promote psychological stability, something Stirner seems to forget.

You use dichotomy without understanding the word. If you did, you wouldn't say that. Not all dichotomies are the same. Some, such as the concept of Yin and Yang, have the idea that each side has a reflection of the other within them. Collectivism and individualism are not seperate, they must work together. Stirner admits that this is true, but proposes an individualist collectivism that sounds like Ancap voluntaryism. This was addressed repeatedly over the thread.

A construct made by humans is different than one made by humanity. Your conflation is telling. Either way, it's not like Stirner is against the concept whole sale. He thinks that society originally began as a union of like-minded individuals, and most of what he have is the corpse. How to continual renew this union is a question left hanging. Like Marx, Stirner isn't always as prescriptive as people would like him to be, but only points out the issues of living within society.

Which Stirner also recognizes. Liberty and owness are two different things to Stirner.

Well, the end goal of communism would require less government, so I don't really see the problem.
Morality is just a mask possessed men wear to hide their own predilections. If you think otherwise, you're naive af.
That's not even Marx's argument, you stupid fuck. Now I know you're full of shit.

And societies are nothing without the individuals who compose them. Again, this isn't really dichotomy.

ITT nihilist smart-aleks who don't understand how retarded their ideology is, start reeeing and nit-picking in response to valid criticism.

Which is why the whole thing is a facade, like I just said.

That's all we really have to begin with, tbh.
It's Collectivism for the very wealthy and the people who benefit from it, vs a collectivism for the proletariat.
Which is why fascist, liberals, and socialist all continually talk past eachother, (not that they were going to get anywhere to begin with), when appealing to the collective good, without considering what is good according to them.
Likewise, we have bourgeois "individualist" vs individuals who want to enter into a union to overthrow them.
The perfect sociopath is one that can hide behind morality. You would be giving them a great inroad.

All which contribute to creating a fixed idea.
The mechanisms that planted the seed in their heads, don't discount its existence.


Well, yeah. I'm not really denying that. The point is, that despite of Ron Paul being dumb af, he is pointing out a trend in how they view themselves. If you can point to them and say "not muh collectivism", what's stopping an individualist from doing the same to a capitalist?

Point to one place where Stirner "forgets" this, tbh. I can even point to places where I think he may have been wrong about historical developments, but I've never found him really denying the cause and effect of cultural influences.

Not my point. I just think yours is a false one.

That's not really a true dichotomy. Both have something of the other in them. If that's the route you want to go down though, that's fine with me. It kind of supports what I've been trying to get at.

Yeah, and I keep waiting for someone to cite a pg number or something, but no one has been able to. If Stirner says anything about being "voluntary", it would have less to do without ancap voluntary organizing, and more to do with what people are thoroughly conscious of.

...

boomer pls leev

Like I said, a shit ton of pretense.

It's like you think I have a problem with this, and I don't. I'm a pragmatist. If the long-term goal is to dissolve the state, I'm OK with it.

If we're talking about certain forms of egoism, maybe. Stirner, no.

Same way anyone does.Oh, did moralist suddenly become the only ones who could point a gun?
Same way a socialist would.

Nigga. I'm not trying to build a milk-shop. We building socialism. wtf.

Fucking why? If it appeals directly to you, why would I need to lie?

Not everyone needs to be told a ghost story to do something they like doing. There's way more to human motivation than that. Interest in what what they are doing, for one.
Sure, a society composed of individuals. I think it's funny that moralist accuse egoist of being idealist who don't understand social influence, but then think people are only motivated by the idea of "the society" out of nowhere. If there is no one in that society that you care about or has influenced you, then what use is it? They are conditioned to care about it because of the people around them.

None of these post added anything.

I was never arguing to the contrary.

Except the problem is that as according to Marx Socialism is an inevitable progression of human history, and in socialism collectivization is major part of that process. Something elaborated upon by neo-marxists like Lenin.
Stirner rejected this and instead promoted an idea of voluntary collective work that operated on the principle of self-interest, which sounds all good, except that in the end it results in the same anarchist fantasy that ancaps have, where no-body violates the NAP, except there isn't even an NAP to actively prevent a person following their ego to manipulate and exploit collective effort. You can say that you'll get rid of them, but if that were the case, a world wide proletariat revolution would have occurred already.
I'm not arguing against that, in fact that is exactly my point. it is faux-collectivism.
Socialists are on the same line as fascists? Peak praxis right there.
Not this burger level shite of "no definitions are concrete" which flies in the face of MILLENIA of philosophers discussing moral ethics. It's the celebration of being a complete and utter libertine, which is just gilded hedonism that serves an ill end for mankind.
Greed and envy are powerful on the human mind, and are only magnified by such apathetic self-interest. One only has to look at the USA, where family bonds are meaningless, and societies lack of empathy or collective interest creates a society of literal sociopaths and nihilists, which has reached its peak with the wide-spread availability of internet autists and NEETS. We are flooded by knowledge to the point where we shut most of it out, so as to not go insane, and as a result are asleep and unaware of what is an objective truth or not. And given so many ways to interpret the information we have, even those who open themselves back up and learn to properly filter the knowledge, are led astray by things like Market-socialism, or egoism or other notions of various levels of ridiculousness.

Existential nihilism inevitably becomes a philosophical expression that promotes a exploitative mode of production that turns people into alienated individuals without purpose aside from personal gains. Ego-centric people are not admirable and over the course of history, among culture after culture, this has been an ever-present idea.

Trying to twist my statements around is not an argument. You don't seem to understand what a sociopath is. Sociopaths reject all morality and sometimes mask themselves with a facade of morality. HOWEVER that facade does not make morality itself null. Capitalist individualism is the worst form of sociopathy because all the horrid actions and consequences; is completely open and normalized. Every one fends for themselves, only helping another to make a gain. Avarice and apathy prevail, and those who do refuse to follow that, will pay the price.

No, they do not actively think that they are acting in the common good. They simply act like this because they know no other way that would be as efficient. They are not aware of this faux-collectivist mind-set and thus not in control of it.
That's what I was arguing. Your point about the Japanese fails precisely because of those mechanisms.

When people compare egoist nihilism to ancaps there is a reason. Stirner's main idea is voluntary collective effort based on egoistic tendencies. However the ego is not a fixed thing and can be manipulated easily by one clever enough to do so, and that person will simply manipulate the efforts to benefit them more-so, because their ego will dictate that result. They will have no reason to care for the others except in terms of improving the income to their ego. In Ancapistan we see the same thing, the unironic idea that people's self-interest can coexist, when reality shows otherwise.

Except that's not it at all. There is a reason there is a word called racism and not 'race based collectivism', because collectivism is a neutral word in and of itself. Racism is a form of prejudice, based on generalization, rather than collectivization. Your argument is like a burger claiming that you are using the no true scotmsan fallacy about Venezuela, when pointing out the blatantly obvious facts that indicate it as NOT SOCIALISM.
Because it is a wholly different and false equivalency. Capitalism is the Private ownership of the means of production, with a focus on profit and generally utilized with markets. Capitalists are individuals whose ego leads them to exploit others, consciously or not, this creates a system that further encourages individualist predation of one another. Capitalism is a form of individualism, and so far, has been the only form of individualism that has successfully been demonstrated to wholly reject voluntary collectivism. Socialism requires a compromise of individual and collective but on a level playing field, and is specifically built to appeal to the working class on the basis of destroying class-based hierarchical actively. Egoistic/nihilistic individualism merely pre-supposes that the working class will over-throw class hierarchy out of self-interest, whilst ignoring the fact that such a hierarchy will return as there are no mechanisms to enforce and direct the classless individuals after the struggle has been fought. This is assuming that the working class is even conscious to its own plight.

He does not properly address them either. There is a reason why the USSR did not attempt to wholly exterminate ethnic and nation based identities but adapted them. you cannot force people out of a mindset they have been part of for millenia, and destroying culture is also a crime, because those cultures have elements of value, like music, art, mythology etc. you must simply eliminate the toxic parts such as rigid irrational and illogical traditionalism and allow people to make their own choices, and appreciate others differences.

You stated that my dichotomy based thinking, (and assumption you have made based on a single conversation no less), is stupid like Ron Paul's yet you do not properly explain that. If that's not your point, why digress so? To be unnecessarily snide?

THIS is a NO true scotsman. Look up the word Dichotomy, in the images you will find Yin Yang attached to several articles. Yin Yang is a form of dichotomy based thought, albeit one different to the Disney-esque completely black-vs-white thought processes.

He never says it directly because as I have been saying he is trying to avoid that idea entirely, DESPITE the fact that individualist anarchism is the basis for ancaps as much as it is the basis for many ancoms. His ideology can fit both pretty well in terms of the theory he presents. However he disguises it with purposely over-complex bullshit.

"boomer!" "moral-fag" "muh spooks"

These are the buzz-words of nihilists, watch out!

Attached: the autism these levels its amazing.jpg (441x93, 11.12K)

They added plenty, the responses to them were petty and you added nothing.

Say what you will, but I've never called someone a "smart alek" yet.
Enjoy your dementia.

Point to one thing they added.
You can't

More asinine playing at being clever. You're not clever, just uninterestingly sardonic.

If you embrace stirner or individualism then you will inevitably be forced to face this issue.
Making a pragmatic compromise is socialist. Marx already understood this, which is why he skipped the pettiness of its impossibility.

Really? Because appealing to ego is only useful to mercenaries, people who the left-wing detest and rightfully so. Mercenaries simply enter battle to make money (or anything else offered to their egos), and if they decide that their lives are not worth it, they will leave. Which is why egoism will never give us heroic and/or necessary sacrifices like the defense of Brest Fortress or Stalingrad or the air defense of Hanoi

Morals are not the only things that guide me, therefore your label is false. As for pointing a gun. Pointing a gun does not mean you can lead or even fight. Leading your men into battle takes more than a weapon, in fact you can lack a weapon completely and lead them, because you are not leading them into battle for personal reasons or appealing to THEIR personal reasons, but for a greater good. You can be derisive all you like, that speaks not of informedness but rather a lack of understanding.

Already explained why that would fail.

Egoism is not inherently socialist or any 'ist' for that matter, although I personally consider it counterproductive to socialism. Stirner's milkshop was an example of him trying to put his ideology into practice.

You can lie to an ego because it can be manipulated. There are entire professions based on this, salesmen of various types for example.

This is exactly the bullshit attitude that has led to so many mid-life crises' and suicides for people of 40 and younger. Not everyone knows what they want to do and more importantly, it is important for a healthy human psyche to be able to do something that allows for esteem and thus self-actualization. In modern society the actions of one person are minuscule, which is why it takes collective effort to build something like a satellite, thus the idea of working for a greater good is appealing. It's more than a personal project, it is a creation in benefit of many other people, whom you may never meet, but for whom YOU have helped ensure a decent life, and who in turn work to give you and others a decent life.

Nihilist egoism is a cancerous entity that has only risen in popularity because today's edgy next generation needs a justification to tell their parents to fuck off when they question the fact that their lives are aimless. They are not able to have a real basis for self-esteem and thus are unable to self-actualize, leaving them bereft of many things, such as a balanced moral compass among them. Instead they relish in the idea that they in their own existence are of value, instead of earning their value by achieving something. It is a false esteem based on self-absorbtion.

In a communist society, the general welfare of the state (which is comprised of the proletariat) is of top priority. People do not struggle to survive and succeed their birth-given socio-economic status so much because no-one is more or less advanced than you in any meaningful way. The work is distributed to the strong, able, and appropriate, and the incentive to discover and invent is to leave a mark on mankind and to improve society as a whole, as extreme wealth is not a given option for this mark, mostly because it is not needed. It persuades the individual to seek scholastic advancement and make scientific discoveries by removing the Capitalist-added incentive to simply gain money and buy extravagant things and act ostentatiously to gain fame/ recognition. The idea is to pass the predatory phase of society and establish a more peaceful, academically-oriented society that champions general welfare and scientific/mathematic advancement as opposed to championing income inequality and profit. Egoism will, at one point or another, run against this.

No-one is denying this you obscene moron. The point is that its not just individuals. We are not all individuals in our own vacuums, we share the same world and we as humans are as inherently collective as we are individual. The more civilized we have become the more important becomes the collective. Capitalism in the USA is decaying because of this, while Japan rides on pure robotosism. The EU, which are social-democrats, are becoming more radically left, slowly (because of politics) but surely. Egoism may tolerate collective effort, but scorns it as a "necessary annoyance" rather than an advancement to encourage.

That's not what I said at all you knave, it is not out of nowhere, but is based on how humans are highly social animals, and they are social with one another out of more than pure ego, but out of the necessity of their own biology. Something that capitalist individualism obstructs heavily and anarchist individualism also obstructs in a similar, if less heavy handed a manner.

To not care about anyone or thing is a nihilist principle. Caring about something is not the same as being guided by your ego. I can cherish a family heirloom, yet it has no intrinsic value to my ego. The whole point of socialist society is not to be guided by self-interest, but to provide a society where self-interests are kept healthy and maintained through the consideration of others.

Not all conditioning is wrong, but it depends on what and how. Capitalist society is the wrong kind because it bases it on the manipulation of self-interest.

Shuriken
They provided an argument why morals are not bullshit, while pointing out that the fact that morality is not the only driving force one can have and it is not a contradiction to have more than 1 motivator. They pointed out how logic and rationality are not the same thing, and that society is not a fixed idea. There is more but point of the matter is, a good lot of the content is unaddressed. Force of habit I suppose.

Attached: hahaha.gif (182x190, 485.74K)

So you admit that there is no provided solution aside from the magic of the market the magic of collective voluntaryism based in self-interest.

Marx did not JUST point out the issues of society, he studied them and after providing a criticism of them provided a theoretical solution expanded upon by Lenin.

he recognizes it, as if it leaves a bad taste in his mouth.
Great, more , "not my definition" crap.

Not essentially, There is much ambiguity to that. Additionally Stirners argument is not proposing his ideas in a time when communism is realized, but as a process to realizing it, which fails for reasons mentioned in the mass-posts prior.

No it is not. Morality has been skewed to be used as a mask, however in and of itself, morality is not a mask but a guide.
Of course it isn't, and I never claimed that. But Marx is not talking about things from the point of view as a fellow human being, but as a logical study and analysis. Thus it is you who are full of shit and a stupid fuck for putting words in my mouth and gloating over your strawman.

This… again…. I've addressed this already, You do not understand what a dichotomy is, if you keep expounding this.

NEET lvl 80

No it can't, not of you bring it before your ego and make it your property. It's clear to me that capitalism has lived long past the prognosis of it's death because it continues to serve itself, along with the bourgeois ( I know Stirner didn't believe that last part).
Yes its true that to truely act in your own best interest you need to be able to map out all the possible come consequences of your actions and internalize them but literally no one, not the state, bourgeois, the scientific community, or anyone can do that.
Also O like Steiner became it forces assholes to actually be MORE empathetic to others. If you can't convince someone to accept socialism as being in their best interests it forces you to examine why, in this case its the superstructure, and there's a myriad of ways to undermine that but it'd require a lot more self control than the majority of so called leftists have.

I'll take sardonic over just plain uninterestingly moral.
Yeah, been down that road.
That's the way I roll, I guess.
There's other things more important to me.
Well, I'm not willing to die for spooky shit like the nation or some higher power. If there are people around me I love and I want to support, I'd die for them.
Sounds easy. Just point them in the direction they need to shoot, and tell them god or whatever higher power of the hour wants them to shoot, and let them have at it.
get on a cross already
Why are you suddenly saying a socialist would fail to organize production? Because I don't have the same hard on for spooks, the practical application of socialism goes out the window? wtf.
Just because you CAN doesn't mean you WOULD. Christ…fucking sociopath.
Just because your fairy tales are the only thing holding you together right now, doesn't mean the rest of us are on the verge of nervous breakdown. The rest of that is just a pretentious diatribe that would make Jordan Peterson cum.
Yeah, I'm for this, so you check one egoist off your list of undesirables.
No shit. It's why I'm a socialist.
Yo dummy. The ego isn't some onesided thing that only serves one cause. I find all that human relationship shit fulfilling.
OK, you involuntary egoist. Also, are you really conflating Freuds ego with Stirners? stahp.
Yeah, I got no problem with this.
Sure, which is why I have no problem with it, because it's more about the individuals that compose the society then just for societies sake.
Agreed.

Nah, he didn't even give your strawman version of him as an example.

He didn't give a blueprint, and I think you know this. There were guiding principles, but it wasn't clear cut. Lenin did a lot of work.

It's not my fault you didn't read Stirner.
When does he even mention that it's a process to realize communism?
For idiots who can't figure out what they want to do, and then do it. Just take an ethics class if you want a guide. inb4 the conflation of ehtics and morals.
Which is why it's nigh utopian to even argue on those humanist grounds, you moron.
You fucking cretin. It's not a straw-man to see through your utopian humanist flotsam. You're the crawling in the afterbirth of what brought scientific socialism into existence.
Says the fucking humanist that thinks the only reason people condemn exploitation is because of some humanist principle, despite the humanist being btfo by Marx. OK you fucking troglodyte faggot.

>Stirner rejected this and instead promoted an idea of voluntary collective work that operated on the principle of self-interest
You keep saying self-interest, but even the concept of the Union wasn't based around that. In fact, the book only mentions self-interest maybe three times. The crux on which his whole philosophy stands is "owness”.
Point to one place where Stirner was against aggression based on principle.
I don’t even know what you are arguing here at this point. Are you really trying to lay all the blame of failed revolutions on egoist or what?
How is it faux, when the bourgeois are collectively in collusion? It's not faux, but the workers aren't conscious of their role, so they are fleeced and stringed along. I agree, the collectivism of the proletariat is preferable to the bourgeoisie, but I don’t think you have grounds to call it false otherwise.
Good thing I didn't say that. I said they talk past eachother. Way to misrepresent people like a good moralist, tho.
Yes, a millenia of philosophers arguing amongst eachother because none of them can agree on what is "the collective good". Yes, so concrete. Also, I don't think even most moralist would agree that everything in terms of “collective good” has been laid out concretely, except for maybe Sam Harris.
For the love of god, read the damn ego book. Stirner would agree with you that passions that run wild can affect owness.
Yeah, bourgeoise individualism is a hell of a drug. Good thing I don’t buy into it.
This is the some “get woke” tier shit. Objective truth isn’t always easy to discern anyway. I see nothing wrong with this.
I’d add moralist socialism to that list.
Not sure how you can come to that conclusion, when moralist of every stripe have contributed to exploitation.
I mean, history books don’t treat communist well either. Not really an argument.
No one is twisting your statements. My point still stands that you give them a better method to gain power than any egoist.
I agree. It doesn’t make Stirners ideas any less viable either when sociopath glomps onto them.
It goes deeper than that. Their object relations are all screwed up. They lack the emotional spectrum most people have and have no empathy.
Agreed. Which is why I, as a socialist individual who doesn’t mind collective endeavors, want to stop them.
You don’t really need to be aware of fixed idea to really one. That’s something Stirner recognized.
That the Japanese have a fixed idea planted in their head because of culture? That’s something I completely agree with though. Whether the Japanese are conditioned into thinking collectivism is inherent to the rigid capitalist hierarchy they live under or not, makes no difference to me.

Attached: robot1930pt2.jpg (610x758, 204.64K)

At what point is acting of your own volition not an ancap tendency then? Plenty of socialist join orgs voluntarily. You’ve got to really shoehorn it, then water it down, to make this type volition only applicable to egoist. Also, whether it’s voluntary or not is never really brought up by Stirner.
The fact people can be manipulated isn’t really an argument either way, as far as I’m concerned.
Yh, as I pointed out before, self-interest in the service of owness isn’t the same as this narrow concept of that you have.
Nah, you can point to things that show it’s socdem. The difference is that I can’t really say that racist forming a collective coalition to form an ethnostate isn’t collectivism on some level. It’s too demonstrably true. Besides, it’s not like socialist coined or invented the idea of collectivism. Collectivism doesn’t necessarily mean there is collectivization involved
Not necessarily, and I think you know this. There are plenty of these types who moralize about it. The protestants love to do this. Not only that, but there’s a question of how owness fits into the capitalist framework. It’s possible, but there would be a lot of factors to account for. This would probably lead us into agreement that it would be much easier to be some kind of sociopath as a capitalist, especially if you are aware of the social relations of production as they relate to the bourgeoise class. Still, this narrative of the capitalist as purely individualist actor neglects things like familial pressures to take over business, or even to rise to the level bourgeoisie. Marx made some similar observations on bourgeoisie family, that it becomes an empty business relationship. Profit can just as easily become a fixed idea the capitalist serves at the expense of all else.
We’re honestly not in disagreement here. Again, I’m more concerned with owness than liberty.
Yeah, this is more an argument about peripheral then. I get that’s important, but it’s not like you can’t incorporate it.
Which Stirner recognized when pointing out the divide between the “cultured” and the “uncultured”.
Also,

for boomers

Creativity isn't your strong point is it? Nor reading for that matter. Whatever strawman away pal.

nice of you to cut off the rest of the sentence, the key part, but this is to be expected

That's not what I said… at all… nihilists truly are sociopaths.

That's not how leadership works you fucking tool.

impale yourself already

You're not a socialist.

No, because your motivations are self-interested rubbish that is the sort of faux-socialism I detest. The kind that results in the socialist dystopias shown only in fiction. The kind that always ends up with the kind of "fug uthority" type retardation one sees with antifa these days, borne mostly out of sub-conscious self-loathing and lack of actualization created by capitalism.

There is not JUST you you self-centered fucktard. If YOU don't someone else WILL.

I don't live with no fairy tails, m8. I can be as pragmatic, precise and logical as a damn computer, that was my nickname at work. I choose to live as I like, but when things require seriousness I am no fool. As for stability, I'm quite stable, psychologists/psychiatrists, may be impersonal, but they have no reason to lie.
Morals are not like religion, they have philosophical bases, and there are many types. Morality is not my only guide, logic, and knowledge are as well. Only a fool follows one way blindly, unchecked, and you clearly are one of them.

Sure you aren't, whichs is why suicide rates are skyrocketing, teens are getting edgier and edgier, and apathy just grows and grows. You are so immersed in society that you don't even understand or notice this… ironic really.

(you) Was that cool enough mom Stirner?

Perhaps not in YOU, though from your prior statements i doubt this, however you are not alone on this world, and not everyone is perfect or willing, not to mention aware or caring. They have no moral qualms stopping them and logic can dictate several paths, among which are exploitative ones.
[X] Doubt

I was being theoretical

Giving things multiple fucking definitions is retarded. If its not like Freud then don't call it Ego, coin a new word FFS

No it isn't. This "muh boomers" bullshit is a load of crap created by edgy teens as a self-defense mechanism to spurn their parents because "fug u dad" it's pathetic, grow up.

That's more than Stirner did.

I did, but feel free to claim otherwise

For one talking about not reading you have done zip on leaning what morality even is.

You've never taken an ethics class if you think you can gain a guide there.

That's not what I said which is why I call your claim a strawman. My claim was that moral grounds are why we care about a person who has no relevance to us, not that it was the only reason for socialism. There is no logical reasoning to care about anyone else unless you have a use for them which is inherently egotistic and direct, The only reason you give a damn about someone else who is not directly involved with you is because of ones moral compass that prompts empathy, which si a key part of being a human.

you yourself and I. That is your own, and Stierner's philosophy dictates attention to your own, I.E. SELF INTEREST

You cut my sentence again. I stated that it was LIKE the Ancaps and their NAP except there isn't even that.

No you callous cunt, I was explaining that Stirners idea that the ego would result in workers revolting against hierarchy ignores numerous factors, and that otherwise, the world revolution would have long since occurred.

there is a reason he is known as the shitpost king, grow a thicker skin

I was explaining my position, you dumb twat, not saying that's what you said. Always ready to get up on that cross, I guess.
That's apparently how every moralist thinks it works.
I am
Motivations have nothing to do with bringing socialism into exist, you puritan.
Someone else could regardless if I do. Nearly every tyrant has been a possessed man of some sort.
No one asked for what they call you at work or how logical you see yourself, niggy.
They're exactly like religion.
So do religions
like religions
Yeah, but it's some idealist notion that morals would change this shit. God, you're dumb
wash your foreskin
Not like I was going to convince you anyway ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It was still dumb.
Things have multiple definitions all the time. Don't get triggered about it, you autist.

It is false because it is not a collectivism as it is a manipulation tying people together without them being aware of it. Collectivization as a principle implies a level of consent, that is lacking here.

now you understand what your strawmanning is like

So instead lets reject it completely? With that logic we ought to have abandoned science centuries ago. Each philosopher has a concrete definition, one must study them to understand them, prior to discarding them.

Except where is the counter? For all the 'agreeing' there isn't much for a check system.

Without objective truth the proletariat cannot be class conscious, THAT is the problem.

I really ought to make a meme out of you. Everything is a moralist to you. Ad hominum is not an argument. Also your argument fails because that's like saying. "He did it too!" How does that justify it?

not true. History books written by capitalists propagandists with an agenda are anti-communist. Yet objective historians like J. Arch Getty, V. Zemskov and others have shown communism as it is. Ego-centric people have been analysed by objective sources before and they have never been positively portrayed in any culture I have yet seen, and I have seen and studied a good hundred or so (not all the way through as that takes years but enough to get a detailed enough picture).

Your point fails. you just took my phrasing and tried to look clever by just claiming the opposite with my words.

Except sociopathy flows along egoism far better. Sociopathy is a lack or rejection of morality.

Depends on the degree of sociopathy. Lack of morality is the defining feature of all of them.

Then you were explaining it to a strawman, and that doesn't make you much less sociopathic if that is your position.

Except
A) I'm not a moralist you glitch
B) That's not how moralists define it either.
C) that was not my argument, strawman again.

And Mussolini was a democrat

They have everything to do with it, as ⛏️rotsky so perfectly displayed. Regardless of whether his ideas were tru socialism, his motivation twisted whatever progression he was pushing to his own ends and thus distorting it.

That's exactly the fucking problem.Everyone thinks that since someone is going to be a traitor, why bother caring lets just free for all. leading to inevitable capitalist exploitation, that individualist anarchism fails to address.

No one asked for you to post here either yet here we are.

Except religions are not exact, they go through mythology and mysticism and fables. Philosophy does not do this.

No and I never said that. But rejecting them completely only worsens the problem.

If you had an argument aside from "G-go read muh ego book" and "muh moralist"

says you

ONES THAT ARE RELEVANT SOMEWHAT TO ONE ANOTHER. Although why AM I getting angry about this, it's to be expected considering how much people today fail to understand how language develops and works.

OK? That's still not a blue print to get from point to the other.
Then your reading comp is garbage if you've neglected owness.
It's a guide towards finding a way from point "A" to point "B" based on what I value. That's enough.
In relation to the working class. It's the same tripe humanist socialist have spewing since they came into existence.
People have empathy regardless of morals.
Nope, try again. Here's a clue, it encompasses empathy as well.

When your reasons are not simply self-interest but also a broader purpose. Like the difference between private and personal property. Voluntary action of pure self-interest and not are different. Getting a cake because you want it for yourself is not what I'm talking about that is normal levels of self-interest unrelated to greater good in normal times, (especially post-scarcity) however when it comes to terms of ideas like building socialism that is when it becomes important.

It is mentioned in terms of his Milkshop example

Sure it isn't

It isn't the same, it isn't the same. Where is the explanation for this? Oh right, In "the (holy) Ego book"

Socdems aren't socialists, they just have tendencies similar to them. Regardless they are far too minority in Venezuela to register as remotely socialist even by liberal standards

What motivation is there for a capitalist? Profit, which appeals to their ego.

Protestants are actually partly the reason capitalism arose, ironic.

Which is why his complete discardence of Morals puzzles me.

A western mentality if I've ever seen one

Oi,oi that's my line there

I didn't

No wonder you're confused, Those classes are t be taken seriously only by the ignorant. they're a horrid misrepresentation of moral philosophies.

Empathy is developed, not born with. human interaction and more importantly moral guidelines grow empathy.

You seem to miss my repeated point about it being a GUIDE. you are not slaved to your guide, because you are an intelligent being. The guide HELPS you but does not DICTATE you.

A strawman of what? Someone who isn't a moron and can pick up on nuance? OK.

Then quit making moralist arguments
No, that's exactly how they function, though.
I never said it was waterbrain
That makes way more sense than you think it does.
I really don't care if a person only managed to implement socialism because he was trying to get a girl to like him. If it works regardless of his motivations, I can't be bothered to care. Anything else is just pearl gripping.
Since when did I say it would just be free for all? The point is that it's possibility even if you impose moralisms on people.
You can still be bound by them like any other religion. Also, depending on the philosophy, you could get your share of mysticism and parables.

Yeah, that's still idealism. If you could even show a correlation between the two, you'd have to prove it to be causal. My money says it's not.

Arguing over peripheral again then, it is.

You need new glasses m8, you didn't even read what I said correctly

I wasn't. While I think morals are important, I don't think they are key or a central basis of decision making. You'd pick up on that if you paid attention.

Well then it's a good thing I'm not them now is it?

Then what was the point baka?

Oooh you sounds SOOO clever.

That's the fucking point, it won't work, not in the long-run.

That's apathy, which is not a good thing.

I didn't claim that you said that, but in essence that's the end result of such a thought process.
Whose talking about imposing them? Or that it isn't possible with morals. The point is that morality may make some people hesitate and not do it to over-ride selfishness, and allows a manipulation to be more easily seen and addressed.

Those are usually shit philosophies like Kantianist dogma and shit.
The only one I can think of of the top of my head is Daoism and even then they're used in an aesops fable way rather than "muh story of moses".

How

The correlation is causal, This is noticed even in the 60s by many people such as James Baldwin.

I don't think they really are lying. It's probably what they really believe. For the sake of argument, I guess I can assume it is tho. If that were the case, they would still be forming collective coalition to get what their demands met. Whether it's consensual or not, while important, does not negate their collective actions.
Why not? Why isn't a "good" between socialist enough to satisfy?
The implication is that there is some collective good to be found. The Messiah will return before that happens
Sure, and I haven't found any I'm convinced by.
Owness. If passions are given complete dominion over your life, to the point that control is lost, you've ceased having any autonomy from it.
That makes more sense. I still see the situation of them being confused and figuring out using a plethora of information not an inherently bad one.
I wasn't making one. My point was that saying nihilism leads to exploitation is strange, considering there's a much greater trend of moralist capitalist. It's not a matter of "He did it too!", but how you draw cause and effect.
Depends on what you mean by positively portrayed, and ego-centric. As an egoist doesn't necessarily fit one profile, I'm guessing that would be incredibly difficult.
Sociopaths flow along morality just fine. In fact, they would probably get off on having other people think they are upstanding moral person. That's often the case. If a sociopath were to become an egoist, it would be much easier to point him out.
It's a sign of deviance, not necessarily sociopathy. There is no "defining feature" in that sense, as to carry the label requires dysfunction, distress, and danger as well.

Attached: robot1930.jpg (761x1129, 202.9K)

It's still volition. We're just splitting hairs at this point.
What if I get a cake because I get off on others enjoyment of it? It's selfish, but I like making other people happy so it doesn't really matter.
He never gave a milk shop example.
He makes it pretty clear that sensual desires can rule over people as much as any other fixation. Owness is more of a form of self-mastery that promotes internal, as well as external autonomy.
I'm not saying they are, I'm pointing out that you can demonstrate they are different.

-Junger

I already knew that. The point was you think think they need to have dominion is society or its betterment. Call yourself stringed cheese, It's still a moralist argument, regardless of how you distance yourself.
Illustrating how people will throw themselved into a pit if you say it's morally good for them.
You haven't demonstrated how that's the case, other than showing the ⛏️rotsky was fixated trivialities. Just like moralist are fixated on their morals. Also, if you don't think they are key or central basis in decision making, this whole point seems moot anyway.

Apathy when it comes to retards is understandable.
but where are the proofs?
It's not possible with morals, as they are inherently about what people "ought" to do.
Or they'll just incorporate them into whatever framework they already had, and act destructively anyway.
Manipulation isn't seen by definition. You're not going to be able to point it out once it's happening to you. Morality just provides another method of manipulation, not exposure of it.
I mean, Plato's cave is a big one. Christ also spoke in parables. The only real dividing line is mysticism.
It's an unavoidable consequence of learning philosophy that you end up tangled in it one way or another. You end up bound by it either way.
By thinking that rejection of some idea worsens a problem, rather than considering it's only a signifier of the failings of capitalist society at large. The difference is, that I'm not about to create new set of morals, as I see that part and parcel of that failure.

Since when did James Baldwin do research?