How exactly do so many Stirnerites espouse anti-capitalist views?

How exactly do so many Stirnerites espouse anti-capitalist views?

Other urls found in this thread:

amzn.com/1943687900
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dr-bones-the-stirner-wasn-t-a-capitalist-you-fucking-idiot-cheat-sheet
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-stirner-s-critics
theanarchistlibrary.org
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Because they're edgy mongs with no reading comprehension.

Because they haven't actually read him

because capitalism is a spook

>"People" should act in accordance with their self interest
No, *I* should act in accordance with my self interest and not bother with societal morality.
>the capitalist exploitation of the working class is wrong
The capitalist exploitation of the working class is undesirable if me and my friends or family are members of the working class, and I should want to free myself (and them too, if it's in my interest) from it. It's "wrong" against me. Seriously, does Veeky Forums even understand egoism? Have you read stirner?

The whole point of stirnerian egoism is that what's good and desired for oneself doesn't need to extend to other people / society, so calling them out for being hypocritical is just meaningless.

I don't think you understand egoism desu. By the way, it would be in your best interest to become a capitalist and exploit people, not to abolish capitalism.

OP you're a spook so fuck off

>it would be in your best interest to become a capitalist and exploit people, not to abolish capitalism.
Maybe. I'm not the "stirnerian commie" OP is calling out, I'm just pointing out the inaccuracies in his pic. I'm just saying that being exploited by a capitalist is an absolute bad to one's self, and the capitalist's self interest isn't "okay" because of stirnerism, it's separate and opposed to the exploited worker's and he should remove that influence. Saying that it is definitely in his self interest to become a capitalist and exploit others is too much of an absolute, it may legitimately be in his self interest to help the poor.

A better society in which everyone recognises their own egoism is possible. Capitalism functions upon exploitation - using spooks to bamboozle people in being complicit in their own exploitation. As an egoist, it is in my self-interest for others to not be spooked up mongoloids.

>How exactly do so many Stirnerites espouse anti-capitalist views?
Because property rights are a spook.

Read his book.

...

*Replaces labourers with machines"
Pssh nothing personnel kid

How exactly can you read Stirner as pro-capitalism?

By being American

I would assume they reconcile it with stuff like this, I'm not an egoist so I don't know.

Egoism, as Stirner uses it, is not opposed to love nor to thought; it is no enemy of the sweet life of love, nor of devotion and sacrifice; it is no enemy of intimate warmth, but it is also no enemy of critique, nor of socialism, nor, in short, of any actual interest. It doesn’t exclude any interest. It is directed against only disinterestedness and the uninteresting; not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc.

Machines only make labor more productive. You can only "replace" labor with machines while maintaining profits if you have access to machines that other capitalists do not have access to. This is why capitalism requires the constant production of new needs. The day that machines can produce everything we need with minimal employment is the day capitalism collapses.

Being a "stirnerite" doesn't mean you stop caring about everything/everyone but yourself you dumb cunt, it means you stop caring about shit that you don't CHOOSE to care about.
You obviously view him as preaching some self-serving "ideology" when really he's saying create your own, probably because you're the classic weak submissive dog who needs to follow what someone else told you to.

you can be both anti capitalist and anti communist. they are both forms of materialism. why is this difficult for people

Property is a spook

Strange question. I don't know how a 'Stirnerite' could possibly be a capitalist. Stirnerism and capitalism are fundamentally incompatible.

whoever drew that meme never read Stirner
Stirner addresses egoism-as-spook
his egoism does not take deontological form

no they aren't, there's value to be derived from property rights, and their existence is very well written in law.

>in law

Stirner and -ism as a prescription from outside My self are incompatible. If I selfishly for my own 'unique' reasons (which may take the same logical form as Your or His or Her reason, but are unique in that they suit Me to Myself in My self-comportment) want to act as an -ist, then fine, until such point as -ism no longer suits me.

No, property rights in MURIKA stem from a case that says "the natives are savages and only the ones in power get to say who owns things."

Its fucking stupid and a spook. Go read the fucking fox case you uneducated piece of human garbage.

>only the ones in power get to say who owns things

hmmm

Capitalism is still another spook. Being pro capitalist would not be egoist. I would say the only real anticapitalist egotists would be like Ravachol or Mesrine. Anticapitalist + Egoism = Criminalism.

>value
>law

>I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I need to “respect” nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!

You know, Stirner is much less "This is wrong" and much more "This is fucking stupid good God it hurts to look at".

Is it valid to say that naturalism is immoral? I'm not a philosopher, but I think it's natural for might to make right, etc.... but I don't think that makes it morally right.

anticapitalism sounds good IN THEORY. But in practice, you'll slave your life away at the gender neutral communal farm, growing sickly and emaciated on your meager soy rations while an obese blue haired komissar of indeterminate gender screeches WHITE MAAALE! OPPRESSOR! in your face for all eternity. the sun burns your skin, the earth is covered in gravel. only porn is cuck porn. trannies throw rocks at you. books and the reading thereof banned as a hurtful expression of patriarchal phallogocentrism. Is this really the future you want, brother?

He was against capitalism though. i.e. why should he respect property rights

>t. amerifat
You will never become a member of the ruling class

Alright Jordan, calm down. Those scary postmodern leftists can't hurt you.

fascism for me is existential performance art. my brand atm is mishima + kierkegaard + d'annunzio + timothy mc veigh+ james franco in spring breakers+ sam hyde. every man creates his very own reality, hence, all moral principles are actually aesthetic principles. thats the power of True Will.

I reject your reality.

no OFFNC, i just dont find it very aesthetically appealing. the modern world is a sickening 'inspirational' buzzfeed video about tolerance, just an endless Hieronymus Bosch-like gay pride parade of ever fouler degeneracy, a 'diverse' crowd of smug brooklyn ‘millennials’ scolding 'white guys' in an mtv web video production for all eternity.

im an existential nazi.

i am fully aware of the total absurdity of my own beliefs, yet this only motivates me. There’s beauty in embracing absurdity. all ideologies are equally absurd, anyways.

i might be deceiving myself when i feel the spirit of the nordic warrior flowing through my veins, when every fiber of my being burns with hatred for ZOG. but nonetheless, im 100% sure these feelings are way more real than anything you prozac popping, weed addled, hi-estrogen untermenschen will ever experience.

Hitler was a mere prefiguration of kalki, that is to say, the real deal. in the end, hitler was human, all too human, too merciful and restrained. the end of the kali yuga is nigh, kalki will come to finish the job. he will show no mercy. he will make the world pure again.

Apparently, there is a new translation of Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum.

amzn.com/1943687900

As though Evola's retarded ghost had a stroke.

>regard the product of labor as theirs, and enjoy it

But they don't know how to make or design it and they don't have the tools to do that. All of that is provided to them.

Waitaminnit, that's almost verbatim from Against The Day

Pynchon really is /ourguy/

you can't escape retardation, the only thing you can do is choose your own form of retardation. I wanna make my existence into an act of rebellion.

It's a spook.

>every man creates his very own reality, hence, all moral principles are actually aesthetic principles. thats the power of True Will.
work that explores this idea?

trash humpers

Why are you discussing an anime character?

Thanks user been waiting on that for quite awhile

>What's best for me is best for all.
At least if you're concerned with the long term, and that you're not a psychopath.

They arent anti anything
If they choose to espouse anticapitalist views they would probably teach foraging, survivalists,off grid enterprises. Or possibly start a lobbying group that work against capitalist legislation,

Or they become pirates, or comnunists, or whatever they want to call themselves becuase anything that isnt is just a spook.

STEEL YOURSELF he said and stared in the mirror. He was a man of little muscles but hair in fullish form hung from his head. There were marks on his skin but they were not from war. He said STEEL YOURSELF and gazed into the other side of the mirror where his refelcion stood. He was known for many things across the world, but none of them were easy to describe. One of his many accomplishments was the introduction of the MAn/Anilamal dichotomy into public discourse. What Nietzsche had begun with HUMAN ALLTOOHUMAN he had continued with ANIMAL ALLTOOANIMAL, lowering man even more in his own eyes. People endorsed this and started roleplaying as their favourite animals oin public life, which lead to many nasty and censored scenes. He wished to reach higher than that though. While the folk was copulating and living the strange lifes of Mananimals he had idealls of greater things in his mind. He dreamt of culture, he would say sometimes to his reflection or: I'm a bridge to the Uberman. ut sometimes he would also sink down on his knees and cryeth and there was turmoil across his room due to the fact that despair was in the house. There was nobody else in the room but it would be fair to claim that atmosphere was volatile and biodynamic. Sometimes he thought air was animal with feelings and minds because it soke to him in secret words of an unindentified language. He looked at his body and thought Man look like animal. Just look at our hair, look at the fat, at our forms, look at how unaesthetic and real we are. One can see we are animals. Its very clear" he said to his reflection and sat or stood occasionmally though the raio was generally 50 50. When light shonme through the windows he would say: Now our animalistic impulses make us wake. We are not man, we are not machine...." and then he would stare at his flesh-reflection in the mirror screen and wonder: When will i mate. Am i a bull? And he would look at himself. He thought that maybe man was a great animal. When he slept he heard roaring as if a thousand machines were mining deep in the crust of earth and were extracting ores of valuable market exchange prices...... He said: This man works so hard and pictured a MANANIMAL working very hard as to support his MANANIMAL family with fodder. Man were very smart he thought, very smart animals. Then he would wake up and think of the dream he had just had. Oh man he tought these dreams i think are haf dream half animal, they are driven by mananimal instincts i'd say. And he would then go to the bathroom and take a leak and think: Just like animals do it. When he was back on his bed he thought of uncertain thinks and had a vague expression of confusion that nobody ut god saw and he started mimicking people walking on two legs with his fingers and think: MANANIMAL, ALLTOO MANANIMAL. This whole episode had stretchen an entire day and he had grown very tired. So e dceided to sleep some more and wake up when the time as ripe.

Imagine a life where you have never been great at anything, never felt the urge to be great at anything, never felt that magnetic admiration to someone who was great at something, wanted to imitate and ultimately defeat him. Just nothing. Literally all you do in life is exist to post on Veeky Forums. Occupy space. pass the time.

You're bored, as usual, posting about your fucking dislikes and not even feeling any kind of happiness from it, just soothing your constant need to be bitter and cunty and petty toward other people. Every single thing you've done in the past year was mundane, shallow, boring. You spent the last six hours reading kinda-interesting plebbit stories about people who made interesting buildings for their populace or some stupid bullshit that you think is interesting and you may say is interesting but you're not really sure if it's really interesting. You're just fucking sitting there, gestating, fermenting, with a moist hole between your ears that guarantees you'll at some point have to get up and move around and perform physical labor to support yourself.

And then you see women, over in some corner, having fun. You've never seen this before. What are they even doing? Instead of their consciousnesses merely sitting in their thick skull and revolving around itself, they are imbuing their conscious energy and intentionality into external objects, crafts, goals, projects. All the bitterness and cuntiness you feel nonstop seems to be absent from them, as they congratulate each other for being victorious, and happily learn from someone who defeated them.These creatures are truly content to be alive. They have found purpose in a purposeless universe.

And your gaze turns back on itself, on your self, and you realise you've never had that.You can never have it. So you sit down, you post on Veeky Forums, and you fucking ruin your life, the whole fucking thing. The five seconds of attention you get will be worth destroying it.Because you're failure OP.

How can people so grossly misunderstand Stirner. His criticism for capitalism stems from this:
If everyone acts only in their best self interest capitalism as we know will stop working. This is just an objective truth. It's in the nature of capitalism to create winners and losers (the reasons don't matter, it may be hard work that makes the winners or luck. Irrelevant).

Now if every loser recognized the system isn't working for them sepcifically - so the exploited workers and those involuntarily without a job - the system collapses.
I think if everyone acted according to Stirner, the overall system might remain unchanged, but the internal structures of corporations would change from hierachies to partnerships. This is just a guess into the blue though. I don't claim to know what everyone wants.

Furthermore capitalism is based on spooks. Property, the belief that a healthy economy is for the good of all, the belief that without work you can not be happy... These are obvious spooks.

Stirner isn't anti capitalist. It's just a logical conclusion to his thesis.

>want to rule the galaxy
>crapitalism kills this and stagnates development
>destroy crapitalism and replace it with USSR-tier dictatorship (the whole world, so no one can chip away at you and undermine)
>global government, completely collective mentality, aimed towards technological development and galactic ascendancy

The point is if you decide capitalism isn't in your interest (no matter if your reasoning is flawed or not, it's still your belief). Then you can be against it. You could also decide that exploitation of the working class (at least in the present system) affects you negatively, so you would like to stop it. For you, not for the working class.

At this point he was still talking about white Europeans; all whom besides the lower IQ deviation are capable of the basic training of self management.

The clown town incorporation of literal 80iq shit skins into the economy of supposedly rational laborers is only a modern invention.

Capitalism is Anti-Stirner, not the other way around

>I should act in my self-interest
>I am a member of the working class
>It is in the interest of the working class to oppose capitalism
>Therefore, I should oppose capitalism
It's not that hard. I don't know if I agree with premise 3, but hey, what the fuck do I know.

Property rights can be a spook, but if I benefit from property rights (i.e. if I'm rich) then it's in my interest to enforce private property, and I lose nothing (except maybe the convenience of not having to take out my wallet) in doing so.

Egoism-as-spook isn't necessarily the only way to arrive at a pro-capitalist conclusion, though. I could just be an asshole who derives pleasure from the knowledge that my clothes were made in sweatshops.

The spookman himself was against capitalism, but only because he didn't like it (i.e. he felt he'd be better off in a non-capitalist society). Anti-capitalism isn't baked into his framework, it's just something that follows from his personal preferences.

I don't think that line of reasoning holds. Like I mentioned earlier, I can enjoy living in a society where a significant portion of the population is spooked. It has material benefits as well as feeding my schadenfreude. All the standard capitalist talking points are post-hoc justifications. The real reason to advocate for capitalism is that it can give you direct power over others in a way few other systems can, even if you're only upper-middle class.

>tl;dr
Spookyboy's critique of capitalism stems from issues he personally takes with it, not his framework. Your politics as an egoist amount to whatever you prefer personally.

I'm
I think you slightly missed my point. Of course there's no need for my personal interest for everyone to be unspooked. What I was saying is that if everyone was an egoist, capitalism could not keep working in the current form.

How many layers of enlightement are you on?

You've misunderstood egoism if you think you can prescribe as an absolute what is in someones best interest. It is for the individual alone to assert that themselves.

Remember that Stirner was writing this book. He was poor and largely unsuccessful. He would be in the worker class, Stirner didn't like capitalists because capitalists could control his life. This has nothing to do with whether capitalism is good or bad in general, Stirner didn't like it.

Do libertarians think Stirner was a fucking ancap? Jesus Christ...

Because they were communists before becoming Stirnerites. Their interest in Stirner coming from the failure of real socialism.

>everything is a spook, except the revolution

This is what they literally believe

The capitalist exploitation of the working class is wrong because it exploits me, and I can use this form of morality as long as it benefits my own self interest.
Checkmate, piggies

>>It is in the interest of the working class to oppose capitalism
But that's wrong you fucking retard

^^this^^

le trickle down

Stirner literally ran a co-op milk shop. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about it.

Libertarians are just dumb and illiterate. They hear that Stirner is about pursuing one's self-interest, and they assume that means being a giant asshole to everyone and cucking to porky. They're incapable of conceiving of a more holistic concept of egoism.

>Stirner was a hypocrite loser
Huh, I guess this lends him credibility?

>it's in the interest of the working class to support the totalitarian tranny sjw sharia dictatorship that would inevitably result from any left wing government

so this is the power of the redpill

The idea of capitalism predates trickle-down you memer. You don't have to support supply-side bs to realize the value of markets overall.

that's not how it works my man. you've been spooked.

p u r e i d e o l o g y

>workers own the means of production

Does this mean that a burger flipper at mcdonalds would make decisions at the corporate level?

honestly, have you met any actual 'leftwingers' irl?

People have different ideas on the subject. Suffice to say, they aren't happy with certain people having privileged property rights.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dr-bones-the-stirner-wasn-t-a-capitalist-you-fucking-idiot-cheat-sheet

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-stirner-s-critics

But who pays for my welfare check? Spooked ya.

Stirner was a fashy goy wn trufact only real egoists know this

>capitalism does not suit me because it allows others to profit more than myself from my own work
bam, capitalism destroyed in one simple sentence

>theanarchistlibrary.org
Do you have a credible website? I'm not interested in reading this trash.

This is true, but good luck getting the highly-religious and largely-illiterate working class to become effective egoists.

I think Stirner's critique of capitalism is the least supported and least interesting part of his philosophy. He develops an elegant framework, dismantles lots of bad reasoning, and writes some very charged prose. Next to all that, his politics should be a footnote, especially since they aren't derived purely from the aforementioned framework.

>literally include sentence questioning whether or not it's actually in the interest of the working class to oppose capitalism
>still get sperged at by a Reaganite
It's the communists' argument, not mine. Calm down.

It means McDonald's wouldn't exist as a brand in the first place. Every burger-flipper would own his own spatula, uniform, etc., and the group of burger-flippers that used the same stove, fridge, and restaurant would co-own those.

Stirner didn't advocate for an ethnostate, or even a government. Try again.

>if I benefit from property rights (i.e. if I'm rich) then it's in my interest to enforce private property, and I lose nothing (except maybe the convenience of not having to take out my wallet) in doing so.
Surely you mean property rights deny you the benefit of infringing other people's

Fascism is the ultimate level of freedom and anarchy. A Fascist is just an anarchist who doesn't let the freedom of the Weak get in the way of His freedom.

Of course, but that doesn't matter if I wouldn't take their stuff anyway, or if I have access to equally appealing alternatives. If I'm getting societal protection of my wealth, and giving up the convenience of shoplifting candy bars, that's a good deal.

You could be a Stirnerite and advocate fascism, but ask yourself this: will YOU, personally, really be the ubermensch? Or is it possible, perhaps, that someone else will lump you in with the Weak? Are you willing to run the risk of being jailed or killed in the name of someone else's freedom?

Even assuming you do stand to benefit under fascism, it's still worth noting that one can accrue wealth much more easily than one can become a significant player in politics. You sure it's worth all that effort just to beat up on the minorities and the gays? Wouldn't a subtle, more difficult-to-fight institutional model of oppression cause a similar amount of suffering, but be much harder for them to fight and much easier to instate?

You can espouse whatever views you want when you are an egoist Property

>Property rights can be a spook, but if I benefit from property rights (i.e. if I'm rich) then it's in my interest to enforce private property, and I lose nothing (except maybe the convenience of not having to take out my wallet) in doing so.

Private property lives by grace of the law. Only in the law has it its warrant — for possession is not yet property, it becomes “mine” only by assent of the law; it is not a fact, not un fait as Proudhon thinks, but a fiction, a thought. This is legal property, legitimate property, guarantied property. It is mine not through me but through the — law.

Nevertheless, property is the expression for unlimited dominion over somewhat (thing, beast, man) which “I can judge and dispose of as seems good to me.” According to Roman law, indeed, jus utendi et abutendi re sua, quatenus juris ratio patitur, an exclusive and unlimited right; but property is conditioned by might. What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing; if it gets away from me again, no matter by what power, e.g. through my recognition of a title of others to the thing — then the property is extinct. Thus property and possession coincide. It is not a right lying outside my might that legitimizes me, but solely my might: if I no longer have this, the thing vanishes away from me. When the Romans no longer had any might against the Germans, the world-empire of Rome belonged to the latter, and it would sound ridiculous to insist that the Romans had nevertheless remained properly the proprietors. Whoever knows how to take and to defend the thing, to him it belongs till it is again taken from him, as liberty belongs to him who takes it.—

Only might decides about property, and, as the State (no matter whether State or well-to-do citizens or of ragamuffins or of men in the absolute) is the sole mighty one, it alone is proprietor; I, the unique,[Einzige] have nothing, and am only enfeoffed, am vassal and as such, servitor. Under the dominion of the State there is no property of mine.

What does the commonalty mean by inveighing against every personal order, i.e. every order not founded on the “cause,” on “reason”? It is simply fighting in the interest of the “cause”[Sache, which commonly means thing]. against the dominion of “persons”! But the mind’s cause is the rational, good, lawful, etc.; that is the “good cause.” The commonalty wants an impersonal ruler.

Furthermore, if the principle is this, that only the cause is to rule man — to wit, the cause of morality, the cause of legality, etc., then no personal balking of one by the other may be authorized either (as formerly, e.g. the commoner was balked of the aristocratic offices, the aristocrat of common mechanical trades, etc.); free competition must exist. Only through the thing[Sache] can one balk another (e.g. the rich man balking the impecunious man by money, a thing), not as a person. Henceforth only one lordship, the lordship of the State, is admitted; personally no one is any longer lord of another. Even at birth the children belong to the State, and to the parents only in the name of the State, which e.g. does not allow infanticide, demands their baptism etc.

But all the State’s children, furthermore, are of quite equal account in its eyes (“civic or political equality”), and they may see to it themselves how they get along with each other; they may compete.

Free competition means nothing else than that every one can present himself, assert himself, fight, against another. Of course the feudal party set itself against this, as its existence depended on an absence of competition. The contests in the time of the Restoration in France had no other substance than this — that the bourgeoisie was struggling for free competition, and the feudalists were seeking to bring back the guild system.

Now, free competition has won, and against the guild system it had to win. (See below for the further discussion.)

EGOISM ISNT PRO-CAPITALIST OR PRO-COMMUNISTS YOU DUMB FUCK LEFTISTS AND RIGHTWINGERS.
ANY MEANS MAY IT BE FASCISM, CAPITALISM OR CAPITALISM IS A DENIAL OF YOUR OWN MIGHT. THE MOMENT YOU GIVE IT PERMISSION TO ENFORCE YOUR ''''''SELF INTEREST'' YOU ARE SPOOKED AS YOU ARE NOT ANYMORE IN CONTROLE OF YOUR PROPERTY. YOUR PROPERTY CAN ONLY COME FORWARD FROM YOUR OWN ABSOLUTE MIGHT WICH YOUR SUBJECTIVITY COMMANDS.

I agree with you insofar as you assert that politics aren't inherent in egoism. However, calling an economic/political system a "denial of [one's] own might" is a bit of a stretch. If anything, economics and politics exist to enhance the might of some (typically the few) at the expense of others (typically the many). If you're a system's few, that's a win.

Stirner's spirituality regarding property is an artifact of his personality that we can discard; ultimately, all that matters is his dismissal of value-systems as useful in themselves. That's why we meme about this or that being a spook — not much else is worth taking from his philosophy.

And what do you propose as the alternative? Are you about to tell me NAWT MUH GOMMUNISM doesn't do the exact same thing?

Stirnerism is really just an excuse to dismiss Aristotelian rationality out of hand because its tenants frighten you too much. If you accept that truth can be derived through reason alone, then you accept that Stirner is wrong and his position is essentially thinly justified psychosis.

>capitalism does not suit me because it allows others to profit more than myself from my own work

This is funny, because without "others" you would have literally nothing. The only condemnation of Capitalism is through a non-empirical definition of value invented arbitrarily by emotional thinkers.

>why should he respect property rights
because if you don't respect my property i will smush your nose flat into your face

>I like getting assfucked because daddy buys me a treat sometimes if I pretend to like it

The fashy ethnostate is a League of the Strong. the collective expression of a Race conscious of itself, of its strength and of its will to Power. Our fashy white ethnostate will be at once Athens, Sparta and Hitler's 3rd Reich.

Athens is the weak link here

lmao you spooked mate

Oh yeah all those English factory workers born and raised in the worst conditions imaginable sure where 120+IQ Aryan geniuses

Don't make me laugh dude.

this

self-interest might lead into either pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist sentiment