Why should I become a leftist?

Could you convince a Stirnerian-Nietzschean Egoist to become a leftist?

meme!

I am actually very serious. I was an anarchist communist until reading The Ego and Its Own, and before that, I was a Marxist-Leninist.

Become an individualist anarchist. Or an anarcho nihilist.

My primary issue with anarchism is the following: how does one possibly defend an anarchist society? Let's look at Revolutionary Catalonia or the Free Territory of the Ukraine. They both were destroyed due to inadequate military power and because of poor centralisation of power. These tend to be contrary to anarchistic ideals.

But, specifically, I was asking about leftism. Why should I abandon capitalism in order to embrace socialism?

Because unless you're one of the buckos making thousands a day the chances are you'll make more, work less, have better opportunities and the benefits from research and healthcare will be exceptional. You'll also have job security.

See those factories? They could be your factories.

It doesn't matter what you identify as. It doesn't matter if you are a socialist, anarchist, or whatever. It isn't about beliefs or ideas.

What matters is that all of humanity needs a massive revolution as it has been enslaved by capitalism and its environs. Global civilization is insane. Voting won't help, pushing ideologies won't help, the cure is to expose and criticize the illness that has befallen humanity. Either you see this state of socioeconomic insanity and slavery we are in or you don't. That's what matters.

Imagine if the majority of Americans, Westerners, and/or the entire world were fully aware of the extent of the fuckery from the ground up. There would be a massive discourse about how to tear down this insane system methodologically and replace it with one that works for humanity, instead of humanity working for it. The particulars would work themselves out as long as there is awareness of the illness of humanity and that it isn't "human nature" nor inevitable.

If you feel this, you are a "leftist" in my book.

They could be mine? By that, you mean what, exactly? I own the factories myself, claiming it as my own? Would that be reactionary to you?


Because I'm not prosperous, it is necessary that I eliminate such a capacity?

I'd like to see data to back this claim.
Tell me if I'm wrong, but I see this potentially getting in the way of more productivity, as you just proposed.
For what? This is rather vague.
What is the incentive?
Because nobody would be in a position to fire me? Please explain.

What is the problem with capitalism? Resources are scarce, so people trade goods and services for other goods and services. And are you denying the existence of human nature?

For yourself. We will get true anarchy & independence through might & to get might we must form the Union of Egoists.

Do you want to fight this fight, is the enemy of your enemy your ally? then help me & I'll help you. The more roasted porkies we got the better our world will be. For both of us.

...

Point well-made concerning why I should care for others.

While I agree that the idea of anarchy is great, we must view things outside of our idealistic mindset to analyse it pragmatically.

How do we attain anarchy? How do we defend it? It seems that we assume the end position all too often.

Socialism isn't a requirement in an anarchist society m8

Are you saying that there is such a thing as human nature?

t. riggered

wew lad

this. holy shit w e w fucking lad is right I'm convinced the op is bait now

If you want to be a part of the revolution for transferring money and power from the goym to the chosen ones.

...

You own the means of production with other workers
You'll make more because the income will go to and the workers and not to CEO's skimming of the top.
Capitalist infrastructure is so efficient that we really don't need to work long
The incentive is that you aren't allienated from that research, you researching because you want to, not because you have to or starve.
You have job security because you and your fellow workers own the means. You won't lose your job unless you quit or fuck with the cooperative

What about the revolution for consolidating money and power from the lower rung Jews to the real chosen ones?

Understood, but remember, I asked if you could convince me to become a leftist.

Yes, and it's called genetics.

I own it with other people? Is it really mine if I have to share it?
Is lack of alienation truly an incentive?
Oh, if I fuck with the cooperative, what will happen? They'll expel me? Sounds pretty authoritarian to me.

If you aren't already a capital owner, the redistribution of property would be a good way to get a shot at elevating your position. Of course after that you'd have to work hard subverting the new system to retain your new gained control of your property.

Again, why would I want to redistribute property? If I forcefully take property, why would I give it to others? What does it gain me?

Obviously you wouldn't be redistributing the control of the property evenly, that would be spooked as hell.

A capitalist can not be his own. When he seizes to exploit, or make a profit, he seizes to be a capitalist.


Also capitalism is riddled with contradictions, it's unstable for everyone including the capitalist. But that's arbitrary because it can't even exist without a state. It's impossible to have an economic system based on property without a universal proprietor. If you want to set up unaccountable, undemocratic institutions to protect property within a given area and not call it a state then fine - but you aren't an anarchist.

Then why even redistribute it in the first place? If I were to do any form of distribution, it would be to have selected individuals watch over my property in my place.


Perhaps I merely wish to acquire such things for the sake of having power and to satisfy my own desires.

Property is established through force. Something is mine because I protect it, and I prevent it from being someone else's. If I am capable of using force to successfully lay claim to land, then it's mine, regardless of whether there is a state.

Okay.


Until the you meet the guy with bigger guns. At least you aren't under altruistic delusions like Ancaps but there's a reason Stirner said "the State rest on the Slavery of Labour" - it's because the State's sole purpose is to protect private property. Stirner was a socialist, he just rejected humanistic reasons for it. If you push the labourer's into a corner they will "regard the product of labour as their own" - nothing is static, especially the will of the working class.

No point if you already have what you want.

Living in a non-violent society is in the average persons self interest, and property is violence

...

Because if you would become a leftist you can have circlejerks with enviromentalist khmer rouge provisionals and autonomous poly-leninist queers about joussaince.

And that's how things work out. The State essentially functions as a monopoly on force.
And yes, the state survives through extortion.
And to view one's labour as one's own makes a person a socialist?

Violence is inevitable. The Will to Power is strong in the human race, and many will do whatever it takes to get what they want. Attempting to be pacifistic is an failed idealistic approach to force.

Well, yes. The capitalist exploits the workers labour, he ceases to thrive when the worker claims his labour for himself. There's not one "the socialism".

Is there a high quality res version of this image? Asking for a friend

peek-a-boo

It was intentionally shit quality jpg that was enlarged for no reason. That's the highest quality it ever was.

Sage for off-topic.

Is that a false dichotomy? Either something is capitalistic or it's socialistic? I understand that the one thing that defines the far left is the abolition of private property. People don't have rights. Women's rights, minority rights, minority rights, bourgeois rights, worker's rights, property rights - these things are perceived, and only upheld by force. And as I mentioned, the state functions as the monopoly on force. With the abolition of the state, how is a nonviolent society established? Those who are violent would defeat the pacifists, would they not? How do you ensure certain people don't claim property as their own?