Everything is subjective and a spook

...

Other urls found in this thread:

infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionG6
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jacob-blumenfeld-all-things-are-nothing-to-me
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Stirner and Marx were not best frieds for a reason, newfag

If Marx's theory represents reality accurately (inb4 reality is a spook), it would be incredibly spooky to discard it outright.

What Stirner said was bound to its specific time and culture. Read The Right To Be Greedy, it is egoism modernized.

Gee.

stay spooked

No shit, Stirner was enlightened enough to know friendship was a spook.

Egoists are cosmopolitan vegan version of ancaps who live in squats and smoke bongs instead of vape. They are inconsistent and never make an actual argument. Case closed.

Why would an egoist be vegan? You're thinking of Elise Reclus

t. 14 year old vegan egoist

Also, reminder that spook doesn't even mean anything.

It means a fixed idea.
Every single idea can be fixed, and we can only precieve existance by the creation of idea's. As Materialism is a form of idealism, litteraly every single idea can be a spook! Litteraly Everything!

That's not what spook means user

Because marxism and stirnerism are not the same thing, faggot. Marx and stirner hated each other.

Also thats not what a spook is, OP.

I don't think OP is Marx vs. Stirner, I think he's talking about people here who like to shoot down arguments as spooks when it fits their narrative but then still venerate Marx's theory of labour in the next sentence.

Sage and report

Perfectly valid because spook isn't

...

...

So can someone who HAS read Stirner please explain to me why his philosophy is leftist? And how it would result in a society that would be a desirable alternative to modern capitalism or socialism?

Does anyone have just the image of Stirner punching the ghost?

It's not. That's why Marx felt the need to go out of his way to rape his arguments

uhhh

Feels good

Here you go, my property.

haha spoogs ::DDDDDD

Someone has only read Marx through secondary sources, I see.

Where does Marx say that value is objective? I read the first volume of das Kapital and according to my understanding the labor theory of value only exists in a market context. It's not portrayed as objective, rather as a quantity that necessarily adjust to the average amount of hours a worker needs in order to produce a use value which is depended on whether there's a use for the product in society. This necessity of adjustment is influenced by intrinsic capitalist laws such as competition and the need for the work force to regenerate.
Value doesn't seem to be treated objectively here, more as something that exists as a "unconsciously agreed" upon condition that results from the guiding principles of society, mainly property rights.

Really gets the brainbox bouncing.

...

Thank you, user.

Checked!

Marxian value isn't objective it's based on consensus, and variable.

This whole Stirner spook cult that has emerged on Holla Forums has turned into a fucking spook. Prove me wrong.

I forgot, whether we would all die if we stopped labouring is actually subjective. Good observation OP.

Can someone point me to a primer on Stirner. He sounds based.

Dank meme

infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionG6

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jacob-blumenfeld-all-things-are-nothing-to-me


Also included in this post are all the books he wrote. Only 3. That's not too much reading, eh?

If you stare into the spooks, the spooks also stare into you.

Spook not, lest the spooks spook for thee.

read a book

We have nothing to spook, but spook itself.