What happened to the Stirner/Egoist flags. You guys don't like Stirner anymore?

Aint got nothing against spookman.
I just like Lenin better.
Nothing wrong with it.

Class is a spook

He never makes a single moral argument in that book. KYS

Why would anyone like a pseud whose life, image, and work are synonymous with vacuous trolling?

because consequentialism+dialectics is a reputable form of ethics

By that logic, self interest is ethics as well

Under certain overly spacious definitions, it is. Such is the poverty of philosophy.

I think you're confusing self-interest with materialist hedonistic consumerism

No, not really.

I'm failing to see how consequentialism isn't an ethics then.

I didn't state that it isn't.

There was never a stirner flag, use the AnNil or black flag Warning: Historically anons who have used those flags have, on average, been terrible posters.

Does anyone have the virgin Stirner vs chad Spinoza pic?

Come on. You can't hate the n1x.

Reminder Stirner made Marx so butthurt about his humanism that he wrote an entire book revising his views and spent an entire fucking chapter yelling at The Stirn because Marx was an autist who took the joke seriously and then denied Stirn trolled him after Stirner released Stirner's Critics.

Also Marx's telological approach "communism is going to happen some day its inevitable" is still speculative bullshit, miss me with all the dialectical shit you, you're not a fucking fortune teller. Cappies would rather nuke the world than give up their money; you are not a fortune teller, you don't know the future.

Attached: bear.png (614x768, 637.72K)

Imagine misunderstanding dialectical materialism this hard

Look, the argument was never that communism is inevitable. It's that capitalism is inherently contradictory. Those internal contradictions will eventually cause it to collapse. It's not that socialism and communism are inevitable, but that they are more advanced and productive modes of production that are beyond the contradictory and inefficient realities of capitalism.

You should read Marx a bit before attacking what some Austrian told you about it.

So in other words, the collapse of capitalism is inevitable, just not that being replaced with communism is inevitable?
Oh, you're hilarious.
marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1936/inevitability.htm

Why would you post a secondary source that largely agrees with what I posted?

You should read this:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/index.htm
If you can't be bothered to read the entire thing, read at least chapter 2 part 1.

I read it but I'm not sure I understand, from the article I posted;
And you said so yourself
So again, if capitalism's collapse is inevitable, does that not also mean communism is inevitable, or is it open ended? Or is there a difference between inevitable and "eventually will collapse"?

The reason Marx himself doesn't go further than capitalism containing the own seeds of its destruction is because there is no guarantee that society will continue to the collapse of capitalism.
A relatively small space rock could end us all, or a global disaster like a supervolcano eruption could blot out the sun. War could destroy every human. There are other possibilities. Capitalism collapsing is inevitable because it is unstable by its very nature according to Marx. A progression to communism is an avenue open to us, and is the direction of the pressure from historical and material forces as capitalism becomes more difficult to prop up. The revolution isn't just something that will happen on its own or as a consequence of history. The work still needs to be done. The organization and mobilization of the working class still remains a task to us.

Ultimately, communism isn't inevitable in the way capitalism ending is, because we could alternatively just all die, perhaps even as a result of capitalism itself.

StirnerChan when?

Attached: Stirnerfu.jpg (613x771, 48.63K)