Chernyshevsky

How is it that a rational egoist can be a socialist? Sounds like a contradiction to me

Bump

explain

>Sounds like a contradiction to me

Sounds like you dont understand that not everyone benefits from a hierarchical society

Apparently cheryshevsky was huge proponet of rational egoism and socialism. I dont feel like reading his shit, so Im wondering how those two things are cohesive.

But the people who do benefit would be acting against their best interests to be socialist. Socialism restricts ones abilities to act in their self interests

Whew. Millions died from starvation in China and the Soviet Union. People are starving to death at this very moment in the socialist utopia of Venezuela, and you're trying to take the moral high ground? Piss off m8

>Socialism restricts ones abilities to act in their self interests
Not if you believe raising up all of society is to your benefit. Which it clearly is.

Raising the rest of society isnt in the best interests of the ruling class you dumb fuck. How is giving up your own wealth to the people youve been exploiting in your own best interest?

They get to pat themselves on the back for being such good people right up until the nigger from the permanent welfare underclass kills them during a home invasion.

>Socialism restricts ones abilities to act in their self interests

Did it restrict Mao, Stalin and the Kim Family or the new cadres who had been previously restricted under the old order?

> you're trying to take the moral high ground? Piss off m8

Im not relying on any spooks - unlike your self with that vague utilitarianism. If even one person can increase their standing in life under socialism it is open to the rational egoist

>Im not relying on any spooks
He didnt say you were

>utilitarianism
What? What did he say that was utilitarian?

>your
>self
Kek

>He didnt say you were
He did when claimed my argument was based on "taking the moral high ground"

>What? What did he say that was utilitarian?
The attempt to use the examples of famines in China, Venezuela and the Soviet Union that a rational egoist can't be a socialist

>Socialism restricts ones abilities to act in their self interests
What specific abilities are you thinking of here?

He sounds neat. I may have to take a look.

>He sounds neat
Hes literally one of the biggest hacks in philosophy ever. Dostoyevsky spent his entire career denouncing him. The "villain" in Crime and Punishment is basically the personification of chernyshevsky's philosophy

I guess if you think Mao/ Stalin/ Pol Pot are "neat"

People are starving to death at this very moment in every country on the earth. Even the rich ones
Do you have a point?

Raskolnikov could have solved all his issues by embracing Stirners philosophy and understanding that he had spooked himself with his concept of the Napoleon figure.

Scale is always relevant senpai, don't be obtuse.

It is in the long run. Fewer impoverished and a bigger middle class means a better economy. Consumers should be rich enough to purchase the goods they produce. Entrepreneurs shouldn't earn so much or go so unregulated that their ability to exploit overrides their ability to provide goods and services that are useful in economic growth, upward mobility, development of solutions, development of technology, development of people, etc. This kind of growth being sustained in the long run through fair and equitable behavior means a better future for your children, who inherit your legacy.

If everyone were always exploitative just because it's in their best interests, the world would have never grown. Everything would be cutthroat still.

Class resentment and the crimes of the impoverished don't invalidate upward mobility.

Millions have starved in capitalist countries

He may have avoided murder but he would have been someone even worse (Luzhin)

If someone observes that they are among a population's poorest, they would benefit from socialism as they would be brought up to the average standard of living (at least until socialism as usual lowers that average standard of living too drastically) which is above his own.

That person can still be an egoist himself while benefiting from others' lack of egoism.

That's just my guess answer to your question though. I've never read his stuff.

>How is it that a rational egoist can be a socialist? Sounds like a contradiction to me
There's this book called Ego and Its Own. Everything is explained there. It's for the best that you read it before starting a discussion with no base ground.

All I heard thus far was "rational egoist" and "socialist". You're saying he was a fascist/state-socialist too? Wikipedia should be enough I suppose.

Have you read any Herzen?

It's not, you retard.
Socialism is the balance of each individual's self interest, vs capitalism where each the self interest of the capitalist is in direct opposition to the self interest of the workers

LOL, I remember a biography of Dostoevsky written by prolific translator David Magarshack in which he described What Is To Be Done as the worst book ever written. From what I hear it's basically the anti-Dostoevsky desu.

Hm.
It should be interesting to read this book before Dostoevsky. A comparative analysis would be good too.

Not at all, you are either making the faulty assumption that all Egoist behaviour leads someone to being an antisocial Luzhin type or that Raskolnicov had exactly the same sentiments as that man.

>From what I hear it's basically the anti-Dostoevsky desu
No. Dostoyevsky is the anti chernyshevsky. See

Notes From The Underground completely and utterly destroys chernyshevsky

So which view is more coherent; Rands rational egoist justification of laissez faire capitalism, or Cheryshevkys rational egoist justification for socialism?

How is socialism the balance of everyone's self interest if the law is used in such a way to mandate equality? Law is the use of collective force and that collective force is obviously going to be against some people's self interest, especially the wealthy and capitalists.

But total socialism doesn't just mandate equality in the economic sense,it also mandates equality often in the social, culture and religious sense and that will evidently contradict even more peoples self interest.