This is a genuine question but it might seem a bit baity I guess

This is a genuine question but it might seem a bit baity I guess.

If Stirner were alive today would he advocate digital piracy? Surely it's not in your rational self interest to pay for something you could get for free?

Attached: Stirner.gif (279x305, 9.51K)

who cares

Yes, you idiot. Stirner would have thought that giving something up to receive something you know you could have taken for free is irrational. But it is done for reasons like morality, social conditioning, etc.

He would say "use it if you want but don't complain if you get caught".

You can only steal something when you consider it the property from someone else. So no Stirner wouldn't steal, he would just take what is already his.

Attached: images.png (189x267, 13.26K)

Even from a non-Stirnerist perspective, software isn't property. You can't own data. Even most bourgeois legal systems recognise that piracy isn't "theft", it's copyright violation.

intellectual property is literally the biggest spook ever

No. He would not.

Everything that is "pirateable" is a commodity that is bot and should. The proliferation of things commodities keeps you addicted to capitalist distraction.
If you are a proletariat it is in your rational self interest to destroy capitalism as soon as possible, piracy does the opposite of this.

Attached: 9441fe5be65d12388fc97b6c03f13675256f8950f8861f41ca521c138562365d.jpg (1920x1080, 435K)

spooky

you speak very idealistically here

How

perhaps in a purely rational sense, we could disengage in the mechanisms of the market ecomomy and commodity production, but most members of the proletariat are bound by their material conditions to depend on these "distractions", as you put it. I am not saying that you are incorrect in your observation, but we must take additional factors into question before prescribing rationalistic behaviour for the transformation of society. It is similar to the elitism of Adorno, in his disgust of the sunken society of the working class (which is valid) but we still must recognise our collective limitations as subjects to the domination of the culture industry.

this is not true.
distractions are not necessary to life.

By definition distractions would distract from that transformation of society.


I'm not a leftcom nor have a ever read Adorno so I cannot speak on that.
However
The elimination of distraction would end the domination of the culture industry

yes, but it is simple to say such things, not to act on them. this is why i call you an idealist, the reality is that most of us do not even have the willpower to stop jerking off for more than 2 days, how can we unplug from the matrix with all these limitations?

literally typing this out word for word before i scrolled down

How is it idealist to want to get rid of distractions but not idealist to think we can progress with* distractions?

Yes they are. People who run out of distractions kill themselves. Ergo, distractions are necessary to life.

we can get rid of distractions, but strategies in this attempt require a greater analysis than the call of duty towards "rational self-interest". There are greater pressures on the proletarian than his lack of means to actualise his Will, and insofar as his means are considered, they are more than a disciplined mindset.

distractions imply obstacles in the way of an objective
suicide is not the objective of life therefore your comment is logically erroneous.

If you actually want to destroy capitalism as soon as possible then the absolute best thing to do would be to develop capital machinery to replace workers that costs a fraction of current standard capital, thus ensuring a breakdown of the rate of profit..

then why do marxists hate socdems if they want to accelerate the capitalist mode of production?

You Mongolian hippopotamus, you’ve never read the works, never thought about its themes, and most certainly never understood the author