Is class a spook? What about "muh equality"?

Is class a spook? What about "muh equality"?

Would a classless society be better?

How much does one's birthright and social stature determine outcomes?

Are some born to rule, others to serve?

Should the poor revolt or defer to their betters?

Other urls found in this thread:

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own#toc14
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

Personally, i come from a lower class to lower middle at best background. I personally think there is a genetic or epigenetic component to ambition and success, because all the poverty fags i grew up with seem just physically unable to "get it". Meanwhile the more successful people I've crossed paths with seem to be able to work hard effortlessly, and by that I mean they just have a much much greater capacity for exerting effort than their impoverished counterparts. I've managed to surround myself with a decent number of successful people and I'm doing better than anyone else has by my age in my family as far as I'm aware of, so I don't think you're completely constrained by biology, but it does play a factor. I also cut contact with my family of origin completely, and getting away from their influence has made working hard much easier, and it's made me much happier in general as well.

>would a classless society be better

Can't say. Your wealth determines the amount of opportuntity and exposure you have in life.

>birthright and social structure

Not always. People are capable of change, though admitadely this is a factor in some cases.

>Are some born to rule/ to serve

Your purpose in life is in your own hands.

>should the poor revolt?

Depends what they're revolting against.

Stirner was super individualist and would've disagreed with Marx on many things. Stirner would have agreed with Ayn Rand way more than Karl Marx. Stirner and Marxism aren't compatible because ideology in general is a spook.

>Is class a spook?
not necessarily, but it is a construct that is held together by spooks like "class loyalty", etc.
>What about "muh equality"?
equality is simply the state of being equal, but the idea that everything should be equal is indeed a spook.
>Would a classless society be better?
who knows pham
>How much does one's birthright and social stature determine outcomes?
quite a lot, yes.
>Are some born to rule, others to serve?
nope, unless you mean that some people are born into positions of power and others are birn into positions of servitude. The idea of someone being "born to rule" is a spook
>Should the poor revolt or defer to their betters?
What they """"should"""" do depends on their objectives, what they are trying to achieve and what they are willing to sacrifice. There isn't one universally applicable course of action.

You sound like you've been drinking molymeme's kool-aid.

as decreed by Sir Anonymouse on NEETChan, lol.

Aye, Marx actually got uber triggered over Stirner

Are you me?

I knew class advantages were real after I got out of college, and all my rich friends who sat around smoking pot in college effortlessly floated off to exotic locales on daddy's dime, and I had to move back to east buttfuck and slum it with my ne'r do well old pals.

There are at least two systems in the world. One is built to cater to the every need and whim of the rich and normative. The other isn't much of a system at all, or more like a state of nature with plumbing.

When I was a kid I always told myself I would never speak to my parents after I was grown up. After I was too big to physically abuse they continued verbally abusing me, stole $3000 from me, and even blamed me for the abuse I recieved as a 6, 7, and 8 year old. They refused to admit they did a single thing wrong, and continued blaming everything wrong with our relationship on me. But finding Molyneux did strengthen my original conviction.

Btw I don't listen to him now because he is an attentionwhore for donations from the alt-right, but I do like his historical presentations and old stuff.

Yes, that passage does not look like something Stirner would have wrote. More like a parody.

...

The thing is, how you are treated and raised by your parents does not correlate with your class status. Rich people have crazy, mean, even abusive parents too.

However, I could see that poverty would correlate with increased levels of mental illness self-selectively. Mentally ill people by definition are less able to function in society and so will tend to fall behind. Also, poverty itself through stress and hopelessness will tend to induce symptoms of mental illness.

Yeah but anybody can quote someone out of context. I could find a line where Marx appears to say all communists should eat a bag of dicks or Adam Smith saying all capitalists are pieces of shit.

I'd argue the opposite. Poor people have to learn to "deal with it" regarding their assburgers or whatever, because hey, they're poor. Either get money to buy food or die of starvation.

Rich people don't have to worry about their meals. Leaving them time to do/feel/think whatever.

You could always read it, user.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own#toc14

III. The Free
1. Political Liberalism

When you factor in all the other breaks rich people get as well I suppose you make a point.

Like some rich douchebag could crash a plane into a full public pool, killing three kids, and get off on affluenza. Meanwhile the cops are likely to just beat down any crazy poor person who is lashing out for whatever reasons.

But I don't think we disagree.

In my experience everyone raised poor got the shit beat out of them by their parents. Middle class had a 50/50 chance, and upper middle class it seems pretty rare, but maybe upper middle class are just more socially concious and hide the fact?

Abuse is more than just physical, user.

A country needs a middle class to work, someone needs to consume the goods.

This.

Psycho rich parents know that it is poor form to torture your kids physically. If you really want to fuck your kid up, you get under their skin. You destroy their self-esteem and make them covet your affection, but think themselves unworthy of it.

>lmao class matters more than anything else dood

Kill yourself.

I'm not arguing that, in my earlier post I mentioned emotional and financial abuses as well.
You seem to have it out for rich people, and I doubt you've ever met anyone in your life who was actually rich, as in they have access to more than $5 million liquid. I'll reserve making comments on those people as I've never met one.

Can i ask from what experience you are speaking?

I have no problem with rich people, I just don't think they are better than anybody else just for being rich.

I'm friends with a guy who might not be super-rich, but is definitively upper class. He's also one of the most fucked up people I know because of what his parents did to him.

>personal anecdotes
You sure showed us the truth.

I don't think they're better for *being* rich, but I think that through the process of learning how to aqcuire wealth they get a good idea about the world works and often become wiser as a result. By extension these lessons are passed on to their children, who pass it forward and so on and so on.

But, there are of course exceptions, like your friend.

Class is a spook, but so is classlessness
Depends on whether you mean no caste system or one where people are actually equal, in my opinion a caste is dumb and arbitrary, but so is forcing equality
Not perfectly but I'd say pretty good
Yes
Whatever ends up better, sometimes it works out but African countries that try this turn to shit

What about rich people who were born rich? They didn't do anything to figure it out, and so are not distinguished in any way from the common lot. This state of affairs also tends to be one of the more frequent when we speak about affluent families and inheritance.

>collective interest = self interest

I suppose the same can be said about education as well. Most poor people are uneducated because their parents were uneducated.

Sure some people find ways out of their shit pools but its rare.

That and uneducated people make more uneducated people than educated people do.

Whenever Marxist imply that modern SJWs aren't really Marxist it's refreshing to remind them that Marxist class politics are literally the origin of modern identity politics.

>So I don't think we should get rid of an entire class of peopl-
>SHUT UP YOU BOURGEOISE SWINE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOUR PEOPLE DID TO THE PROLETARIAT AND YOU CAN'T REALATE TO THE PROLETARIAT YOU DISCONNECTED SHIT THEY ARE ONLY RETURNING THE FAVOR NOW
>But I'm a worker myself
>THEN YOU'RE A SLAVE OF THE CULTURAL HEGEMONY OF THE BOURGEOISE WHO BRAINSWASHED YOU THROUGH THE MEDIA AND SYSTEMIC OPPRESSION YOU CLASS TRAITOR YOU WILL BE THE FIRST TO PERISH YOU LUMPENPROLE
>The fuck do you know, you're not even a worker yourself
>THAT'S IRRELEVANT AND BESIDES MARX SAID EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T OWN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION IS A PROLE SO I'M DOWN WITH THE STRUGGLE AND IDENTIFY AS A WORKER EVEN THOUGH I'M AN ETERNAL STUDENT FROM AN UPPER CLASS SUBURBAN HOUSEHOLD

Switch all the classtalk to race / sex orientation talk and you get your average SJW speak.

Yeah, actually. Being part of a successful social unit is in the best interests of everyone within it. There's a reason ants are one of the most successful forms of organism on the planet.

>If you start replacing words with idpol,things will sound like idpol.
What a shocking discovery.

>Stirner and Marxism aren't compatible because ideology in general is a spook.

In a general sense of laborers banding together for the sake of protecting their own interests, Marxism and Stirner are pretty well-compatible, especially since Marx focused on communism as a potential solution to a material dialectic conflict between worker and employer, rather than as some sort of moralistic ought.

Keep in mind Max Stirner outright suggests that labour should engage in a general strike as a means of securing their own well-being in the Ego and Its Own.

Marxism is idpol, yeah. That's what I'm saying.

And there's also a reason why people evolved into having individual consciousness instead of being literal fucking drones like ants.

The idea that ants are all mindless drones is actually pretty dated. They're not as intelligent as us, so they appear at casual inspection to be acting like little robots, but each is ultimately an autonomous organism. There are actually ants that upon the death of a queen will start fighting among themselves over who will be the next reproductive female.

Pursuing our self-interest basically requires successful conduct as social organisms, both from a material angle (two people specializing their labors and trading between each other is more effective than two people generalizing their labors, society is just this writ large) and from a psychological angle (humans don't handle social isolation well).

>being autonomous organism is comparable to having individual consciousness

heh no

They have as much a consciousness as any other insect. They're not some sort of linked entity and each acts autonomously on their own will (such as an ant's will can be called a will). Don't talk shit about things you don't understand, you're acting like a STEMlord, only this time on the humanities side.

>They have as much a consciousness as any other insect.

So none, thanks for playing.

We can't even prove that all humans have consciousness, asshammer.

>it's all relative lmao xD human right for spiders now