Why isn't Tito the official Holla Forums Pepe?

Why isn't Tito the official Holla Forums Pepe?

Other urls found in this thread:

gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=F3EC3B36E977C8AA3399CD55A550B222,
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

...

no zizek is

no *because zizek is

this. tito's a relic of the past, and besides that just another flavor of populist demagogue like stalin. at least use proudhon or lenin if you want an old figure; they actually had important theory.

Because market socialism is shit.

Tito was respected by the world, he doesn't have genocides under his name and he kept all the shitty nationalism at bay in this region.

Also, the economy actually functioned in Yugoslavia and instituted genuine worker ownership, unlike your shitty Soviet "socialists". Lenin didn't even hide he was a state capitalist.

Proofs?

so what?

With so many rare Stirners made on an almost daily basis, I think Max is actually our Pepe.

...

This is terrible, now you say it I think it may be true.

He's a pretty good weapon at completely neutering right wing rhetoric though. It's funny how many polyps lash out at him.

Lenin had some serious flaws m8.

Pepe is the official Holla Forums Pepe.

As well as left wing rhetoric.

Individualism, egoism and the 'union of egoists' Stirner proposes all go against the very core of emancipatory politics (and politics in general): the adherence and collective critique of a common goal and strategy and accompanied set of ethics as a framework of reference. If the fact that no 'union of egoists' has ever been relevant and done anything of relevance weren't striking enough, I wouldn't even need to explain this to anyone.

thanks for letting everyone know!

Sick meme and psychic powers tbh.

Can you address the content of my post now or is that gonna be it?

yes

I'd argue the opposite. Stirnerism is key to clearing one's head of the conditioning morality created by market capitalist societies that has been driven into all of us from birth.

It is this fierce loyalty to the self that suddenly gives new fire of ambition to the downtrodden and exploited and helps them to throw off their chains and rise up.

A rich Stirnerist would use this newfound worldview to go full porky, true, but a Stirnerist who has lived and experienced life alongside the proletariat would see them as an extension of himself and as such desire to do whatever possible to free them all.

t. Proletariat Stirnerist

Stalin didn't make genocide. That's Hitler.

Stalin simply killed people which don't deserve to be alive, because they can't live in a society. I'm talking about corruption and greedy people.
It had to be done. And looking at the current societies in western countries, there is a lot peopel that must have the same fate. There's a lot of people which simple can not live in a society. They're filled with rage, greed, hate, they would sell their own mother in order to win more money.

...

Oh sure, tell me about how every mountain climber didn't deserve to be alive.

They're all bourgeoisie cunts that can waste their time climbing a rock, film it and try to sell it to us as "inspiration". Also they exploit the expertise of the guide.

So yeah, line 'em up.

Cool.

I can see how some kind of esoteric take on the individual worker's inability to self-actualize under capitalism could be useful to winning over certain people, but we here still deal with the fact that, taken to its logical conclusion, individualism is not compatible with large-scale movements in which compromise is the basis upon which organization functions.

It doesn't help that in 'False Principle of Our Education', Stirner directly opposes himself to the socialist movements that existed in his time because any form of movement driven by a cause inhibits the autonomy of individuals to maximize their interests versus that of their collective end goal.

Explain yourself. 'Muh [largest anti-establishment movement against one of the largest frontends of capital's strongarm since '68]' minimizes the very real potential of the movement and why it should be analyzed.

I'm not sure if I follow, or whether you know what you're talking about here. Dean follows a very structuralist take on Marx (see: gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=F3EC3B36E977C8AA3399CD55A550B222, in which she very literally shares the same Althusserian subject Zizek follows).

Dean has been at the forefronts of OWS (like Zizek), talking to protesters and organizers. She is very much aware that the purely academic and elitist left is, like the American individualist left, part of the problem and does her part criticizing it in 'Empire's New Clothes' (also on libgen, if you'd like to grab it!).

Luddites and primitivists have been more relevant than Stirnerites (or any type of individualists for that matter) tbh.

Kek, this is new to me.

Please tell me about how Joseph the Stalin genocided 100 million mountain climbers.

...

So what is he saying? Is left wing elitism right? Isn't that what made right populism win power in the last years?

There is no point arguing, since all fascists deserve to die, so therefore anyone killed by or because of Stalin must have been a fascist, otherwise they wouldn't have been killed.

It's a nice circle they have going.

He's saying that the patronizing elitism, the one which assumes that the exploited are all fools that want to share their stories, is worthless. Those in subjugated positions want to self-actualize; to understand their condition and fight their way out of it. They couldn't care less about being coddled and considered children, because it doesn't do anything for them but acknowledge their obvious predicament.