[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/dead/ - Post-Left

Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

File: 1624233020999.jpg (93.08 KB, 498x750, 1623114812013.jpg)


Is Stirnirite egoism and Marxism incompatible? What if I agree with both Marx's critique of capitalism and Stirner's egoism? What does that make me?


>posting on /dead/


I thought /dead/ was for Stirnism


File: 1624234140698.jpg (34.34 KB, 341x450, engels stirner.jpg)



>What does that make me?
A spook, but thats unrelated to what you "agree" with.


It is but the Stirner fans moved to https://board.prolesphere.one/ where you will get page long replies to your question.


File: 1624306912944.jpg (68.54 KB, 523x523, EwYpQToUUAIi96M.jpg)

>Is Stirnirite egoism and Marxism incompatible?
Egoism is"compatible" with any political stance, giving that the stance is taken in pursuit of ones unique desires and not the politics for their own sake.
If you think that marx's analysis is correct (oh sweet summer child) and it appears to you that organising with other workers to socialise the means of production is the best way to fulfill your unique desire and realise your ownness, doing so would be a highly egoist act.
However, an egoist communist would also only be an egoist first and communist second. They would not hold the goal of communism or the dogmas of marxism as sacred but would be able to drop at a moments notice. Obviously I can't look into OP's head, but it sounds like you are feeling though you have to apologise as an egoist to hold political stances. In fact egoism is a-political, but not anti-political. This often gets confused as The Unique and It's property does contain a critique of - nearly - every political cause, including liberalism, nationalism, conservatism and also communism. But Stirner doesnt attack communism in it's logical framework or empirical soundness, instead he makes fun of the communist believer, the communist who degrades himself for the ideal, the spooked.
A good example for this is also the cause of freedom of speech that Stirner communicates in The Unique. Stirner is not arguing that he wants to see the political cause of free speech be realised because it's the right thing, or because it's necessary to realise a political utopia or even because being censored is harmful to people in general. He argues in favor of free speech because it's in his personal desire to write what he wants and even though he writes also even when he is not allowed to, it's fullfills his desire even more if what he has written can be publically read. The spooked liberal asks for free speech everywhere cause liberal society and liberty itself is sacred to him, the spooked communist asks for free speech for those who promote the cause of communism cause communist society and communism itself is sacred to him, the egoist asks for free speech cause he wants it for himself. He doesnt even ask, he takes it. The same way he can ask for socialised production and an end to capitalism: for his own cause.
so tl;dr: i would say they are, even though im not a fan. there are also quite a few ego-com writers (pic related), some even argue that communist can only be achieved when politcial theory gets completely rid of abstract thought, so check that out too


File: 1624321004435.jpg (310.85 KB, 1114x1326, giga max stirner.jpg)


Good effort post, anon. Everything you wrote makes sense to me. That said, why do you say believing in Marx makes one a "sweet summer child"? Just curious.

Also an excellent effort post, but why did you make it on a different site?


If marxism is a critique of capitalism, than egoism is a critique of hegelian dialectics


cause i wanted to answer your question because i felt like it, but i also wanted to shill the other /dead/ cause that board looks like a cool little project and generally has more long-form interaction


Marx was wrong because he predicted a proletarian mass movement to arise from highly developed capitalist relations, but this never happened, In fact, there has never been a proletarian revolution in all of history. The bolsheviks got into power through a coup and the masses were mobilised by the second world war going badly and not by capitalist relations they had whished to be destroyed. In China, Vietnam, Korea and Cuba we see mostly national liberation struggles being the cause of a regime change, it just so happened that the forces winning out in the end were the communist parties. Lastly, there are countries like the GDR that did not only not have a proletarian revolution, they didnt have any revolution but simply lost a war against socialist forces and was declared socialist afterwards. So in no instance did socialist rule establish itself through a mass movement that had the goal of dismantling capitalism.
The reason for this is that class counsciosness doesnt exist or at least doesnt exist in a historically or politcially relevant manner. Marx predicted that class counsciosness would arise in those situations were capitalism is developed the strongest and the internal contradictions of capitalism create the highest pressure upon the working class, instead we have only seen socialist attemps in places were capitalism was poorly developed and the centers of capitalist production even seem to be the most stable.
Other points worthy of critique in marxism are it's conception of history (communism is is no historical destination), his disregard of the states own reproduction of hierarchy and his own petite-bourgeois prejudices against the lumpenproletariat, but even I don't fully reject marx. I think his theory of value and exploitation is spot on and alot of his sociological observations are REALLY good, but there just wont ever be a class counscious mass movement fighting to emancipate themselves from capitalism. That's just a pipedream.


File: 1624416524398.png (324.55 KB, 401x567, ClipboardImage.png)

Is egoism inherently compatible with any political ideology you honestly desire to be realized?


yes, because egoism is not a political philosophy


Novatore is such a larper lmaoooo


you mean like a pseudo-intellectual?
idk, i always got the vibe of him being pretty clear on not being philosophy in the traditional sense.

Unique IPs: 1

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]