How in the flying frick did stirner end up influencing anarchists(left) when his entire philosophy is against subservience to spooks like anarchist ideology?
 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
How in the flying fuck did stirner end up influencing anarchists(left) when his entire philosophy is against subservience to spooks like anarchist ide...
his extreme individualist attitudes appeal to people who want rebel against authority and society and operate outside of the constraints of christian morality
But anarchists don't just rebel. They want to build a certain society with certain collective values. You have to contort and do all kinds of gymnastics to align your self-interest exactly with positive goals of anarchism to claim you're being an egoist, and frankly at this point you might as well be a moralist.
>But anarchists don't just rebel.
kek thats cute. not even anarchists believe their utopian nonsense has any real world viability. its nothing more than a form of self-expression for troubles people
So let me get this straight, Stirner tells you it's okay to be self-interested unless... it's to act in your interests?
>and frankly at this point you might as well be a moralist.
isnt that literally what stir himself concluded?
leftist theory is absolutely defined by the idea that it is in a persons self interest to embrace anarchism/communism so all it takes is for someone to buy into that idea
They have to commit some kind of leap of faith believing "acting in their self-interest" means adherence to anarchist/communist value system at every point even in the face of other optimal paths. These anarchists come off as extremely moral at this point the way they shove their anarchist values on everyone and rigidly adhere to that shit.
Did Stirner argue against morality in general? As long as the Ideology is just a tool and not a spook, it doesn't really matter?
>They want to build a society with certain collective values
>Anarchist
>an-arkhos
>society
>collective values
>Hi
>anarhcy?
>ann
>you know…
>I have no
>idea
>what is this stuff?
An anarchist society does rely on everybody playing along, though. All it takes is for one person to conduct a single trade of goods and the whole thing collapses
Same way Nietzsche influenced the Nazis even though conformity is antithetical to the development of the ubermensch.
and ironically Nietzsche's influence went on to be the worst part of the national socialist movement and probably brought about its downfall
The left's appropriation of Nietzsche makes less sense than this
>Same way Nietzsche influenced the Nazis
stirner's sister?
>still obsessing over her sister
She literally toned down his anti-israelite and eugenics autism, and only manipulated his work to make him seem like he supports German nationalism of late 19th century. Nazis already knew about him and read his original works, and her sister's influence on their interpretation is not much. No serious historian takes this sister conspiracy shit seriously and only philosophy department still peddles this bullshit.
Where can I read more about this? I assumed that it was that way as well with Hitler since he brought up Schopenhauer.
Not him but Losurdo’s The Aristocratic Rebel has an entire chapter on it
That is part of the anarchist ideology. He came to these conclusions in aid of the beleaguered working class. Emma Goldman synthesizes his individualism with the wholly necessary collectivist end of the ideology perfectly well.
Maybe reconsider what you think anarchism is. It’s plain and simple, anon. Anarchism is “based”
stirner and anarchism is for degenerate trannies
You change nothing by using the t word, dipshit liberal
>Emma Goldman
Pedo sympathizer
It's lol how all anarchists end up defending pedos because muh age of consent is a spook
The funny thing is stirner's individualism influenced anarchism which in turn gave rise to fascism.
Pic related shows the anarchist milieu where fascism was nurtured in a detailed way
>fascism
Now there’s a political philosophy that runs counter to Stirner’s ideas.
There’s a tradition of individualism in liberal capitalism too, and that’s exactly where fascism comes from. The incessant drive for and fetishization of technological advancements, the racist eugenicists, the takeover of globalist free market capitalism.
Freedom runs counter to subservience to glorious leader. That book can’t have anything of much value to say
>That book can’t have anything of much value to say
It's a History book, dumb frick. It doesn't give a frick whether stirner wanted fascism or not because that's not the point. It follows Italian anarchist scene influenced by stirner and nietzsche, and details how they ended up slipping into fascism because of their self-centered egoism and nihilism. There are different flavors of fascism and not all involve worshipping leaders.
>The incessant drive for and fetishization of technological advancements
What makes this fascistic? This is something every state does to flex their status internationally. Nothing inherently fascistic about that.
>the racist eugenicists,
This runs counter to your prior point. You said that the individualism of liberalism led to fascism, but the justification behind eugenics is anything but individualistic. Eugenics justified itself under the notion of rationally planning society--forcibly sterilizing those with disabilities in order to eradicate disease and create a new stronger human being. There's nothing individualistic about this idea.
>the takeover of globalist free market capitalism.
Nazi ideologues frequently shat on the Weimar Republic for being degenerate, international, and commercial. So this is another strange and completely ahistorical claim.
Try reading an actual history book.
>What makes this fascistic?
You’ve never heard of Futurismo?
>This is something every state does
Yeah, hu?
>This (eugenics) runs counter to your prior point.
There’s no contradiction. This is apples compared to oranges to try to nullify these facts laid before you.
>Nazi ideologues frequently shat on the Weimar Republic for being degenerate, international, and commercial.
They’re as expansionist imperialist as their vulgar handlers
>ahistorical
Try reading some actual history and political science
Why do pedophile anons alway draw attention to themselves and think themselves clever when they point their fingers?
>They're as expansionist imperialist as their vulgar handlers
Don't know what "vulgar handlers" is meant to indicate. Sounds like some kind of paranoid delusion.
In any case I agree that the Third Reich was imperialistic. My point was that it's nonsensical to say that individualistic liberalism or globalist capitalism was fascistic because actual Nazis hated both of those things.
They are stupid liars
What anarchist ideology?
Also I hate this individualistic and collective dichotomy. As if you can say one is on the left and the other on the right or that they are even seperated.
Nietzsche understood this. Even Rand did, kind of.
Because people are fricking stupid idiots and can't possibly grasp the concept of a totally and absolutely individualistic way of thinking, they hear about the ideas Stirner gave and immediately in their brains they will think of it as some kind of social movement because it's literally all they know.
You can confirm what i say pretty easily if you just go about to any normalgay in some conversation and start explaining Stirner's egoism. 99% of times you'll get the exact same moronic response:
>b-b-b-but dude what if everyone follows this ideology? people will go around raping and murdering, this guy was crazy!!!!
And then you'll have that 0,99% group of people who are the also idiotic """post-left""" morons who'll still think it's a social movement but still like it anyway.
It's baffling how such fricking simple of an idea is something that apparently requires a mandatory IQ of at least 120 in order for people to actually understand.
LOL I talk about Stirners ideas with my friends IRL and on Imageboards and people are so fricking stupid that they can't even start to understand his simple concepts.
1. they think Spooks means everything... they call house, tree, clothes spooks.
When I explain them that Spooks are ideas in peoples head that others use to control them they just lose their shit and start low effort trolling
>BRUHH HAHA INTERNET IS SPOOK HAHA NOTHING IS REAL
>BRUHH MONEY IS SPOOK JUST GO TO STORE AND TAKE EVERYTHING
2. Doing whats best for you doesn't mean people will automatically go and do random moronic shit like murdering people because thats not in their best interest.
Why would I go and waste my life on something so pointless to proves some theory right?
Government can do that because they have might and power, I don't but that doesn't mean if I ever get hold of power I won't
3.And arguments mostly boil down to : THERE MUST BE RULES, THERE MUST BE LAWS.
Yeah laws are made by people in power to control cattle because they need to use them. Once government decides it doesn't need us anymore they will dispose of us.
People behave "good" just because fear of punishment not because someone gave them book of laws and rules to follow
Even average human would become absolute nightmare if he gained level of power as Kim Jung
>Doing whats best for you doesn't mean people will automatically go and do random moronic shit like murdering people
They will if they can get away with that, dumb moron.
He plagiarized most of work from Yang Zhu.
>3.
It is Justice vs. Freedom argument. Plato lays it down in Republic, Bookchin in Ecology of Freedom embraces Freedom over Justice
can someone get me this audio book please?
Thanks
audible
What a shame