This kills the Holla Forums

Stay in denial boys

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=8XKH-GChHlI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

Are you saying that communism is not in The Man's interests?

t. someone who never read a word of Stirner

Stirner isn't against change. He's against ideals, not interests.

From "Max Stirner - His Life and His Works" By Mackay

lol

t. Someone who has never read a wordmofnstirner


Holla Forumsyp immediately brings up his closet fetish to the discussion
m.youtube.com/watch?v=8XKH-GChHlI

...

This is what Marx wanted to show in the german idealogy, that the egoist will come to communism. Material Interest within Marxism is heavily inspired by Max his descriptions in the chapters of the political/social and humane liberal.

Marxists underestimate the amount of influence Max Stirner had on Marx.


No John Henry Mackay and Benjamin Tucker did.

They'll never understand it. Don't bother, I've tried explaining it.

...

Yuck. Even Feuerbach was ahead of the meme Hegelians on this.

...

I am not seeing the problem here. Is OP trying to contrast this with Marx's statement that the purpose of philosophy is to change the world? If so, he may want to question why he thinks that changing the world is at odds with his own interests.

You saved an early version of that. I have since revised it for clarity.

Unrelated to this shitty thread but I've been thinking of doing some lewds of loli Stirner, but I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate to the board.

I just noticed after all this time that he's doing the meme walk.

so im supposed to jusst shut up and take it up the ass like a good goy, yeah no

No, you're supposed to pursue change according to your material interest, not spooky ideals. The way capitalist enslaves us is by persuading us to pursue goals that work against our interest by subordinating us to fictitious ideals.

Being a socialist is in my self interest, though.

We simply don't care about it.

Influence is a spook.

As someone who admires both thinkers, it's frustrating trying to get them to understand. A lot of the issues they bring up were also answered in "Stirner's Critics".
I've also given up.

Of course.

Otherwise you are evil and authoritarian, since you want to force your ideas on other people, denying them their freedom of choice. I'm okay with that.

what if my material interest is taking your shit, defiling your kids, torching your land and castrating /blood eagling you in front of my men as a sacrifice to the rape gods and a demonstration of my dominance?

If there is a moral law against doing that, would the fact that the moral exists stop you from ignoring it? Also, why would some abstraction based on disinterestedness make you less likely to do that then your own empathy, which you are interested in?

material interest cannot be spooks. The whole point of spooks is that they are not material.

Then it's in my interest to prevent you from doing it.

Is it really in your followers self interest to live in a community where that kind of treatment and torture are condoned? I'd say not. Wouldn't it be in their interest to remove you from your position and develop a more equitable power relationship amongst the community? So wouldn't it ultimately be in your self interest to not create such an antagonistic and tumultuous relationship with the people you interact with and rely upon?

And this is the limit of stirnerizing. This is why Marx beats Max.

Do you have some practically applicable way to distinguish between "spooks" and "not-spooks"? Yes, you think you have, but it's self-contradictory.

That's not how it fucking happened. Stirner didn't spend her inheritance, she was a cunt

t. Mackay

I cant understand your incoherent babble nerds, im going to rape you and take your shit because clearly no one here is capable of stopping me


what does that even mean faggot, If I rape your skinned almost corpse in front of my men it will have very demonstratable verifiable benefits for upcoming operations, dont try to lecture me on my management style

I have
If you do something for the sake of something that is not you, it is a spook.
This implies that everything can be both a spook and a non-spook. If for someone marriage is a spook, for me it may be not, for example.

...

I thought this would be someone you'd both agree to hate.

not you fatty, we are going to jerky your ass and make pork rinds


bitch please, half of my guys are former LEO they love the rapeyrapes

I don't even know what you're talking about, but I can smell the ectoplasm.

Son we have a lewd thread right here
Not only it is entirely appropriate for the board it is vital to quench our thirsty and keep out morale high for the revolution.

...

For clarification, this is the same thing as saying : all immaterial concepts are spooks, but the unique one can use them for his self interest. The spooked unique one is its slave, the non-spooked one is its master.

Yes. And it often is. But:

This bit doesn't work. This implies that you have real interests, the ones that are "truly yours", the ones that are not a cultural (or biological) influence on you.

One can claim those things to be spooks too.

I told you: Marxists don't care. Marx is not the enemy of Max. Marx finished what Max started, which made Max obsolete. Why should anyone hate Stirner for this? Opposite might be true.

I know, it's just that loli in particular tends to be frowned upon in a lot of circles and I don't know whether it's the best idea to bring that kind of perversion up in here.

People should really read Stirner's Critics right after the Ego and Its Own, instead of just reading the only the Ego and Its Own

It doesn't matter though, my interest is not what is best for me, my interest is what I feel like doing.

*you

Yeah. Because Marxist literature is filled with arguments against Stirner. It's not, in case there is any doubt.

...

Never read the guy but maems are so funi.

You are an optimist.

Hans G. Helms from the Frankfurt school did in Die Ideologie der anonymen Gesellschaft (1966) and Raoul Vaneigem from the Situationist International.

Litteraly everything can be a spook

Anyway you are right.

Thank you for yet another argument in my favour Stirner

didn't you claim until very recently that Marx and Stirner's philosophies were incompatible. seems a bit odd to then turn around and say, I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU GUYS ALL ALONG THEY"RE THE SAME THING seems a bit disingenuous.

i am half way throug the book