Markets, Decentralized planning, or Centralized planning?

You are talking about USSR of Brezhnev (and Khrushchev, to a lesser degree).

Hardly the most inspiring example.

I am not talking about the USSR period.

All are ok, but centralized planing will bring you a fucking disaster

Read "markets not capital" here:
And historically this is false, you can read that on "capitalism and material life" by fernand braudel

Neither will work if you allow low Autism Level or parasitic populations into the economy: Haiti, Somalia, Uganda. It makes no difference.

Whereas if the country is all white, it's a difficulty for it not to turn into a Utopia (leave white criminals on dessert Island, Australia happens).

counter-currents.com/2016/10/an-appeal-to-the-bernie-bros/

haha, this is what leftists actually believe.
The only way the soviet worker looks well off is compared to jew-capitalism 1990s-200s in Russia or non-white countries.

No, decentralized planning is a form of participatory economics. It's a new field, but the way it is to be implemented varies - usually some sort of neo-guild system where the product produced for the community (and those who buy it outside of it) is owned in common. It has nothing to do with anything that went on in the USSR, it's supposed to facilitate economic calculation by letting the tacit knowledge of the whole community affect production.

Leninists*

don't thank me for the correction

how is it even supposed to work?
soviets bitched 40 fucking years about decentralization, initiative from below and all that shit

and it all lead to nothing
sovnarchoz reform failed, Khruschev was removed, reforms rolled back

academics preached about decentralized cybernetic socialism from the fifties onward
seriously, soviet cybernetics subculture was a fucking cancer
especially when looking at it from the height of our time
fucking impotents

all they ever accomplished was to build computer centers for processing economic data that nobody really needed.
no wonder directors of enterprises bitched about endless spreadsheets of useless numbers

What a fucking tool you are.

Lol what? This has nothing to do with how decentralized planning works.

Fuck you.

Anyway here's wikipedia on the different varieties of decentralized planning en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_planning_(economics)#Cybernetics.

And PDF related is Pat Devine's theory.

What's wrong with IslamicGommunism poster?

Use your enemies' favorite slogans and don't be afraid to apply their pejoratives to yourself. Politics is largely won through semantics, ad hominem, and being aggressive in arguments.

If you plan on any exchanges in ownership occurring between firms in labor, producer goods, or means of production then there will be an accumulation of capital. No amount of mental gymnastics from anticommunist capital-socialists will change that.

We don't have many examples of Decentralized Planning IRL. Why do you think anything will be different?

Do you have any idea what kind of shithole Russian Empire was even before WWI and subsequent 4 years of Civil War?

Also, post actual facts.

I am ''somewhat' doubtful about this. It's either extremely vague, or straight-out unworkable, or carefully rehashed Soviet version (Leontief, yes).

What do you mean? How transactions between different economic entities are handled?

Yeah … Totally not USSR.

Nope. Actually, got worse.

Would you mind telling what posts are yours?

We really need IDs.

So are you from the future or a parallel universe?

kek

Its true

Statist will always lose

Reported

>>1205175
Hey Holla Forums, you're boring and dishonest.

Well, there are varieties of it that encompass the varieties of cybernetics of the Soviet Union - so I was wrong in saying that. But that's just one branch of decentralized planning. I like Pat Devine's theory in , but it needs more work. I haven't checked out how he's developed it past this yet.

It is very much different. Unless you are going to tell me that the USSR had guild socialism and was actually an anarchist dream with no centralized committee or leader.

Because it wasn't a genocide. Look in the Wikipedia article, even with the obvious anti-communist bias on Wikipedia there is still a section about a "genocide debate". Reported.

no, fuck you buddy

cybernetics is an umbrella term
strip it down of its metaphysical philosophical bullshit, and what will be left is a good ol' hard computer science

dropping this here again since it seems to be a more relevant thread

is there a socialism reading guide about economics? i want to learn about our present day capitalist system but it seems like all the reading guides i can find about it are being peddled by anarchocrapitalists that want to shove ayn rand down my throat. i dont even care about some criticual evaluation and marxist theory, i just want to understand how it works, where its flaws (flaws from our perspective i guess) are in enabling people to gather capital, the flow of capital, how it is controlled and how to manipulate it. (i.e. how and why do capitalists get rich in the first place/how to become bourgeoise scum 101)

id take an economics class but i once visited one and i swear to christ it was more of a neoliberal jerkoff session than actually educational

Reported

I'm not big on the rare Socialist memes, but your description was similar to Kosygin-Liberman reform (1965). And "centralized leader" wasn't something that was a case even during Stalin's era. More of a "unified coordination agency".

That said, I'm still reading stuff, so I'm not claiming myself to be expert.

Holla Forums, you are obvious and annoying.

Under capitalism that is true, but you can subvert markets and use them in socialism in a different way

Instead of capital accumulation, you will have a system of commodity accumulation.

Y

But Haiti was sabotaged economically under the gun barrel of the french and the US.
150 million franc debt for a day 1 country is economic assassination, now how about you read history fag?

But I am not even having a debate

It will be glorious to see nationalism fail just like it did before

Lel

Lets go even further Somalia and Uganda "Africa in general" have the same recipe of economic weakness,
1- under developed SINGLE resource extraction industry "very important"
2-huge external debts
3-Privet firms are monopolized by the multinational companies

If you broke the arm of a child in his first day who could you ever possibility think he will build something,
The debt didn't go away it is still there.

how could you*
kik

They do have an anti-communist bias. They misrepresent a lot of theories and theories, depending on the article of course. Maybe I should say an obvious anti-Soviet bias.

No one cares about your paranoid rants about Jews.

Reminder to report shitposters, we are supposed to discuss economics.

The debt isn't the sole source of Haiti's problems, they had the same GDP as the Dominican Republic prior to the Duvalier's.

No you can't. I will ask you: what defines Capitalism? The polarity of Capital and Wage labourers. The workers still labour for a wage. They still work to expand value with self exploitation. Summary, private property still exist and the state will be necessary to defend against feisty vagabonds and angry refugees of the market. That doesn't even take into consideration the vast legal framework our modern division of labour requires to sustain itself, by the keeping of deals, tracking of pollution and so on. It does nothing to subvert Capitalism, it hands Capitalism over to the workers until those contradictions become glaring enough.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_planning_(economics)#Cybernetics.
so according to this definition market economy is decentrally-planned economy
in this case, what are you bitching about?
Big Bad State?

where is the planning part?
just a bareback feedback mechanism? really?

man, what a shitty article
this is some newspeak tier shit

If it's centralised, it isn't true communism.

If it's decentralised, it isn't true communism.

If there's markets, it isn't true communism.

No currency.

No class.

No state.

This isn't for discussion.

read le book xd

in this case, what are you bitching about?
Big Bad State?
Do you understand what planning means?

Again: do you know what planning means. The scope of production will be planned, how that production will be carried out will be planned. Most importantly, there will be no competition between enterprises - it's planning. It's odd, that you're conflating a guild system ala participatory economics, and a system where the entire MOP is owned in common ala Devine, with markets? Man, tankies are dull.

No, you're just a moron.

Shiggy diggy.

Reminder to report and ignore Holla Forumsposters who are trying to derail the thread.

Read Proudhon

I have, he's wrong even if his critique of private property is admirable.

All of whom have more than just resource extraction industry and the experience of the Ireland colonialism was different under the UK the UK all tho sabotaged the Irish industry BUT they built Brit owned factories there that what saved them from being Africa in Europe

They were never colonized by a super power.

Read Engels writing on Ireland

Born from an internal struggle against fellow "whites". Also, eternal hibernianism.

Massively aided by the greater wealth obtained by western Europe to maintain it as a buffer against USSR imperialism.

Literally no country more depressed than there. Material abundance does not guarantee happiness.

here

Being a fucking island that was never under going agricultural revolution the same way in Eurasia "no wheat or corn or any high protean plant" is also why they are not developed
Guns germs and steel

Computer planning

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

Whats wrong with market socialism?

lQ is bourgeoise

...

Indeed

so are you telling me that BMW doesn't plan its production?
that Google doesn't plan shit?
that uncle-Bob-owner-of-the-dildo-shop doesn't plan?

corporations already plan production

what I want to know, is what is the difference between your special snowflake decentralized planning and already existing planning embedded in market framework?

and please, don't use word "participatory"

Does that give you a panic attack?

unrelated to thread

Reported for spamming

Why are white men so dumb?

telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11965045/White-working-class-boys-are-the-worst-performing-ethnic-group-at-school.html

Hmmmm are you one of them Feels> reels?

...

Reminder the USSR was a failure

Remind us what Stirner and his dozen followers have ever done?

...

Our own will

Yes, but you miss all of the shots you don't take. Ergo, you are less than a failure as post-leftist. You embody nothingness as not just your edgy esoteric pseudo-philosophy, but your essence is that of failure, and what you secrete is waste.

There, there.

D I S S

...

The what now?

how is this even up for debate? Central planning is a form of mass genocide. It ignores some peoples interests, killing them either physically or in morale. Why should some suffer when the state happens not to glance their way? Fuck the state, abolish it an allow everyone to serve their self interests.

As for markets, they stil allow mass suffering while rewarding the lucky few. Communities thatv are less fortunate will have a harder time getting out of their hole due to people migrating to wealthier areas. Markets enforce centralization, they enforce robbing the many for the few.

Decentralization allows resources to be managed locally and allows resources to be more or less fairly distributed. It minimizes suffering.

Fucking sick and tired of your shit Lacan

Explain me this, if he theorized that the kid can accept or reject the symboli imposed on him during the mirror phase, how is it relevaant at all? If my father imposed catholicism on me, and I reject it, how am I falling into the symbolic order?

...

Planned centrally? Sure. Is the whole economy planned? Absolutely not.

They plan their own individual production, and then enter the market place as a seller of commodities, unsure of wether the commodities they've produced will be deemed socially necessary by a purchase or not. The production also entails the expansion of the division of labour, and the alienation of the workers from the means of production. Read Marx.

Read the PDF I posted.

All three.

His ideas are the ones you should be mad about. They're the ones that are eternal, not Lacan himself. And you should be flustered at them because they invalidate what little relevance Stirner's lifestyle guide ever posited and the exactly three (3) people who ever were unfortunate to take him seriously.

His rejection is to be taken as a disdain for what it shapes him into, not as a rejection that detatches him from the ontology every human being molded by language is put into (the symbolic) by definition.

The symbolic order is one we inhabit whether we escape one of its particular contents or not. Even "devoid" of symbolatry (strictly impossible), the symbolic order is still operative at the baseline on the function of your linguistic frame of reference.

Dumbass. Markets facilitate both. We ended up with capitalism because capital penetrated into production and overtook it entirely creating a new mode of production. You keep markets around you keep capital around as commercial or usury capital. And so capital will forever threaten to penetrate back into production and once again overtake it: M–C…P…–C'–M'

This. How the fuck do you expect to destroy capitalism without destroying the conditions that create it? Cooperatives function just fine right now while promulgating Capital, I fail to see how they would fail to do so after private property is "eliminated" (it isn't).

kill yourself.

also, the particulars of the real world have no obligation to the symbolic. You can only pretend so because of the ambiguity of language.

Ownership of capital under capitalism is a legal muh privilege, one which grants you automatic ownership of the fruits of labor. Eliminate this legal muh privilege and establish a framework of personal property and non-profit banking, you eliminate commercial or usury capital.

If you'd think back for a moment, it was not markets that created capitalism, but the bourgeoisie overtaking control of the state from the feudal lords and kings.

forgot pic

Within the realm in which the individual is acknowledged as individual at all, yes. Of course, the subject can exist without language, but he neither possesses the three ontologies of Real, Imaginary and Symbolic, nor do those who do posses them acknowledge his.

Use the proper ontology (the Real) in epistemological discourse with a Lacanian if you wish to tackle his theory.

Properly formulated:
it's still improperly formulated. Because you don't know what you're talking about, as evidenced by such poor formulation as "the real world" (lol), or really any use of the adjective "real" without a majuscule R (lolol).

Pretense itself rests upon the prerequisite that I know language.

No, all you forgot to do is acquaint your mind with that PDF I've posted, or really anything more than your lifestyle guide to 19th century German idealism. Your funnies and epics are very much unwanted here; even you know this deep down (in the unconscious).

...

Proudhon plz
by that logic the July monarchy in post-revolutionary France meant it reverted to feudalism which is stupid and wrong

It is.

For as long as these fruits are not reinvested into production, as to avoid economic downturn and avoid assimilation into the firm that does fulfill its mechanistic role of multiplying its capital. The hell of capitalism lies in the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss. Capital is dead labor whether it organizes itself democratically or autocratically towards the whims of impersonal market forces or not.

Yes.

My god, Pierre, weren't you humiliated enough back in the ze day, Herr?

All capital is commercial, all commerce is capitalistic.

No, don't. Please. I'd love to stepping stone my way to actual socialism through democratic capitalism, and coops beat a traditional private enterprise any day, but stop this market "socialism" meme and the "markets are seperable from the prevailing need for capital accumulation" meme. Just. Stop. It.

Automated central planning via supercomputers.

I am the realm in which the individual is acknowledged as individual. So no.

That's not what I said. I said the individual is more than language and the symbolic! You're being reductive.

There's a reason why I said the real world as opposed to the Real.

this is an impressive amount of autism.

Which is irrelevant.

DELET THIS

You are not atomized. Neither physically, or mentally. So yes.

But I did. And the subject (proper formulation of any given autonomy in epistemology, or "individual" as you would call it) persists as only coming into being via language. There is at once no more we can reduce the subject to, yet at the same time it encompasses everything by virtue of being the its base.

Denk you *sniff* very much.

This coming from the fancy memer who espouses
joj.

Now read Lacan, or I will continue to be the only one with the muh privilege to post funnies.

reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-buybacks-cannibalized/

Not an argument and not pierre, though I respect him tenfold over you.

This logic is a dead end.

The law of value is hardly in effect when it's centralized finance which determines profitability and reinvestment instead of firms.

So yes, start with Fink's A Clinicial Introduction and lurk nosubject. And for fuck's sake stop addressing Lacanian theory without first reading him. I did the same after critiquing Stirner and only reading the Wikipedia article. If your confidence is solid, you'll find yourself BTFOing Lacan like I found Stirner to be BTFO eternally by structuralism. Laziness is impermissible, you faggot. From either side.

I don't disagree.

And language can only come into being through an individual. Language is not the base, it is merely a component.

Now read Stirner and stop cucking yourself for spooks.

Decentralized planning via an algorhythm that treats every enterprise as the node of a network and calculates pseudo-prices by way of iterative methods.

I'll try to find some recommendation pics, just a sec.

Yes. The stockholder's ownership over capital is twofold resting upon him the duty to reinvest it into repeated capital cycles, or masturbate with it until the aforementioned becomes a pressing issue again. Or he can go out of business and look for another firm to ascribe his labor power to and keep the machine going.

Or he can kill himself. Like you should, you lazy and consciously disingenuous faggot.

Thanks for the reply, great discourse.

You managed to conflate Proudhon's first name (PBUH, your daddy you haven't read but wax semi-poetically about) with some literally who Holla Forums personality by the same name. I even hinted that it was the 19th century dustbin occupant by interjecting the German Marx spoke when he humiliated him and all notions of "market socialism". Dude.

Such is capital.

The law of value is in effect the second you produce for exchange, making capital prevail as the economic motor.

And yes, I will keep posting that WEBM. So far it's been great; marksucc appeal has been on a heavy decline ever since I started applying baseline Marxist critiques of it accompanied by that WEBM. The true "red pill".

Language comes into being for the purpose of precisely expanding beyond the subject's Real. It is that which introduces to them the three ontologies and forever abandons any notions of atomized decision-making. So no, epistemologically language not only kills your shitty notions of "through the individual", but also the subject's direct shaping of it intermediated through another (or more) subject(s). The second you opened your mouth and secreted your first words, this operated and can't cease to.

Language is in all cases of our human cline the base. You wouldn't be able to knucleheadedly struggle against this fact if it weren't so.

Not him, but this is nonsense and utterly ahistorical. For starters, language is almost completely societal. The common cliche is that Esikmo's have no word for "snow" but 10 for different types of snow. Similarly, the word "blue" is never used once in ancient Greek text because it was ridiculously hard to create, and blue eyes were in short supply. Language is not only societal, but a product of the the societies environment. What you're saying only makes sense in some solipsistic world, where the individual is the only person on the entire planet. And even then, the method of classification the individual would use would be so divorced from most, if not all features of language such as syntax, traditional groupings of verbs and adjectives &c, that we would be speaking about something else entirely. So instead of posturing yourself in some theoretical world where only you exist and then deriving from that language is the "product of the individual", posture yourself in "le real world" and realize that language is our means of communication - communication we must carry out in order to survive as a species and shapes us as individuals.

Wrong. It is not a duty but a muh privilege. He only reinvests when it benefits him to do so, and he can always choose not to, something which does have a history of happening and causing recessions.

No, you misunderstand, I'm not a mutualist because I'm not an anarchist. however, I still respect him much more than you or Marx for that matter.

And yet, here we are.

And yet you haven't addressed the point. Profit is no longer the economic motor of our society, but credit, and by extension, the profit of the financial sector at the expense of production.

Nice to see you have an avid imagination. That will take you far in life.

Even without language, his decision making is not atomized, for he must still respond to other stimuli. But it matters not, for the decisions are still made by individuals. You keep acting as though Stirner's egoism relies on the idea of the atomized individual, but this is hardly the case. In fact, his view of the ego is designed to encompass everything that makes an individual.

Hardly. Show me a case where language is occurring that did not come from individuals.

You can't live without oxygen, does that make it the base of all life? No! You need water, you need carbon you need DNA! you need many things!

Society is made up of individuals, dumbfuck. And unlike society, individuals are not abstractions. Language is spoken and written by individuals, they learn it from other individuals, and it cannot exist without individuals to utter it.

nice strawman

This is what I could find at the moment, also this one: beta.8archive.moe/posts.html#!leftypol/125451_#125451

There's usually a literature thread up, check the catalog.

His own benefit (material interest) is the extension of and enabled and sactioned only if he first performs his systemic duty of readdressing his capital cycle, for if he does not he does not levy the demands of socially necessary labor time, and by this extension the basic needs capital condition by virtue of creating the necessity of subsistence for all those under capitalism.

There's a reason were refer to capitalism, and not capitalistism; because the primary motor of capitalism is capital, not the single or few capitalists. Once again, a market society suspended of traditional enterprise and replaced with a legally-enshrined multi-stock owner one still fulfills this function.

Alright, yeah. Nah. Okay, I'm out. Also, lmao @ accusations of ultraleftism with that pic, as if the most basic of Marxist critiques of the poverty of philosophy are anything more than just that.

Actually, hold on, I'll indulge in one more gem of yours:
>Society is made up of individuals (N.B.: subjects), dumbfuck.
Yeah, society. Haha.

Peace.

I was not strawmanning shit. You are conflating the fact that language is predicated on the existence of individuals, with it being a creation of the individual or a "product". Language is the product of MULTIPLE individuals, which you can hardly call an "individual". I proved it can't come "into being" through an individual, it's use and ability to approximate the Real and thus COMMUNICATE effectively is only through the negation of the individual into a collective who agree to adhere to certain rules, use certain words, succinctly a certain structure - or in the case of animals - make certain sounds. This is Ancap tier reasoning, I don't even know what to say.

This is factually false. For it is not in the material interest to readdress his capital cycle if there is an ongoing recession and he will not likely get his money back.

Which is exactly why we get capitalist crises!

But here's the thing, the management of capital has long been delegated to professional managers by the capitalists for some time now! Institutional investors controlled 67% of market capitalization in 2010, up from 7% in 1950. Not to mention 73% of the 1000 largest corporations. sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1365171515808 So yes, our economy is under the control of a handful of people appointed by capitalists.

Orthodox marxism belongs in the trash along with you. Welcome to the 21st century.

Funny how words have different meanings to different people. It's almost like language isn't universal and is entirely dependent on the particular context and individual.

Multiple individuals are multiple individuals. It is not the product of a nebulous and abstract society. When I say that language is a product of the individual, I refer to the fact that if individuals did not exist, language would not exist.

Rules which the individual can ignore at will. Certainly you've come up with words and funny names for things which only you use.

Here's a challenge for you. Show me a society. Point to it.

Protip: you can't.

Hence Marx's critique of Says Law and hoarding. Good job! You've realized money isn't neutral. You still have not argued against the fact that his overall goal is the expansion of value, and he will only abstain from reinvestment if it is hindering that goal.

So now you're contradicting himself?

>But here's the thing, the management of capital has long been delegated to professional managers by the capitalists for some time now! Institutional investors controlled 67% of market capitalization in 2010, up from 7% in 1950. Not to mention 73% of the 1000 largest corporations. sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1365171515808 So yes, our economy is under the control of a handful of people appointed by capitalists.
This is no way undermines what Marx said, and I'm beginning to believe you don't understand Marx's critique. No one denied the role of "capitalist" in the expansion of Capital - they are a class of people subordinated to Capitals need and fulfill a specific function. You want change the structure, but nonetheless subordinate a class of people the needs of Capital.

You didn't redefine society, you are simply claiming it does not exist. I'll get into why that is insane now.

This is inane. You might as well have said "existence predicates existence".

Of course. And when I use those words, I am effectively not partaking in society. Here's the thing: if every individual did that, there would be no society. The fact that you are able to spew drivel at me means you have negated yourself into a collectivize by having to adhere to a certain structure of language you had absolutely no part in creating. I'm also willing to bet that whatever words and phrases only you use are placed in the context and grammatical structure that again, you had absolutely no part in creating. And the few special words I have for certain objects don't make up the bulk of my vocabulary. Following that train of thought, I certainly haven't invented my own lexicon and syntax completely devoid of any influence from my first language whatsoever and now use this as my primary means of communication, and I don't think I have ever met anyone who has, but maybe you're a neurotic who really does this. Who knows?

Walk outside into the street, and witness two individuals having a conversation. Witness them walk down the street, read the sign for the coffee shop and then order a society. Or better yet, look at a fucking computer screen. I don't need to prove society exist, you are witnessing it in action right now. Society is the negation of the egoist into certain rules and structures. Without that, there is NO communication, period. I don't have to prove society exist, the fact we are talking right now, proves my point for me.

The only true egoist is the psychotic.

Indeed.

I said no such thing.

But that's precisely not the case. If every capitalist invested in a recession, the recession would end. But its precisely because not every capitalist would invest, that those who do are not enough to stimulate demand and break the cycle that most do not. This is what Keynes talked about when he referred to animal spirits. The actions of investors are often largely irrational and done by the reading of tea leaves. It's a gambling game.

I don't think I'm the one self-contradicting.

And yet, they act counter to the need of capital when they cause crisis.

I do. Because I believe the inherent contradictions of capital can be used, within the proper framework, not to create cycles of crisis, but to transition into something new when it naturally breaks down.

I do believe it doesn't exist. But you seem to be using society in a way that is interchangeable with my definition of the individual ego.

Well, it does.

So the individual does exist after all! Huzzah!

Every individual does do that and there is no society. What there is is interactions between individuals.

On the contrary, my language is just another part of myself, I have only negated something in the maddening logic of Lacanian mouthbreathers. This only becomes a problem (spook) if I put it before other parts of myself.

There is some evidence to suggest that grammar is produced by the structure of our brains and not society. Chomsky, for example, pioneered this work.

I used to do that when I was a kid. It was fun.

I have just witnessed two individuals having a conversation.

this is your brain on spooks.

I am witnessing individuals in action right now. My computer was put together by individuals, and I am speaking to individuals.

"Man, your head is haunted; you have wheels in your head! You imagine great things, and depict to yourself a whole world of gods that has an existence for you, a spirit-realm to which you suppose yourself to be called, an ideal that beckons to you. You have a fixed idea!

Do not think that I am jesting or speaking figuratively when I regard those persons who cling to the Higher, and (because the vast majority belongs under this head) almost the whole world of men, as veritable fools, fools in a madhouse. What is it, then, that is called a “fixed idea”? An idea that has subjected the man to itself. When you recognize, with regard to such a fixed idea, that it is a folly, you shut its slave up in an asylum. And is the truth of the faith, say, which we are not to doubt; the majesty of (e.g.) the people, which we are not to strike at (he who does is guilty of — lese-majesty); virtue, against which the censor is not to let a word pass, that morality may be kept pure; — are these not “fixed ideas”? Is not all the stupid chatter of (e.g.) most of our newspapers the babble of fools who suffer from the fixed idea of morality, legality, Christianity, etc., and only seem to go about free because the madhouse in which they walk takes in so broad a space?"

t. Big Forehead

yup.

About the only conclusion I could derive from your statement.

And this irrational tendency in human behaviour means the future of the market is precarious, thus the Capitalist abstains from investing. It's also the fact that production is not planned that prevents something like all the Capitalist investing at the same time from being organized and advocated properly. This was tried in the Great Depression.

Capital causes crisis's, most capitalist (or atleast the successful ones - and by this I include co-ops) subordinate production
Again, this has nothing to do with the function of Capital itself.

No one said anything about there being a problem, but as long as you are admitting you negated a part of yourself in order to communicate something, then I guess we are on the right track.

Compare the grammar in Basque to Latin m8, a Basque speaker conjures up thoughts in his head completely differently than the latin speaker.

I made a typo, I'm tired right now. Sowwy.

I'm not shilling for Christianity or morality or legality or whatever fixed idea Stirner wants to use, I'm arguing against the notion that the ego is not shaped by society. And by society, I mean the parts of ourselves we negate in order to effectively live and communicate with each other.

A man kills to save his own life. How is this more psychotic than killing on behalf of the State, Society, Mankind, God, or other lofty ideals!?

A man sacrifices his pure state before becoming a man, a proper speaking subject. Whether he wants to or not, he enters language and thus the symbolic order forcefully, and by extension is also subject to the Other's desire and demand. He is no longer serving himself from this point, and can't leave either.

At this point I don't even know what is the point of arguing since you will simply say that any action is merely egoism. Working for someone? Muh ego. Studying for class? Muh ego, nothing to do with having been recommended or forced. It all comes down to truisms from your part.

I don't understand your fixation on denying the symbolic when it speaks through your fingers and mouth. This reminds me of a particularly obsessive fantasy, annihilating the Other and taking his position.

How? I said nothing about the quantity of money nor of prices.

Precisely.

…or if investing was planned then there wouldn't be a problem in the market economy.

lol wut

defend using the destructive connotation. If anything, I'm adding more to myself by using language.

Basque may be different compared to other european languages, but the grammar created purely by biology is more basic than those differences.

…Stirner makes no such argument to the contrary. Of course people are shaped by the people around them. But Society, with a capital S, doesn't exist. What is "society", that is external individuals that affect a person's life, will be completely different from person to person.

And Stirner would simply refer to this as a part of our ego. What I question is why you labor to such lengths to place such importance on this. I owe no debt to society because of this. Or, as Max puts it

"The beautiful dream of a “social duty” still continues to be dreamed. People think again that society gives what we need, and we are under obligations to it on that account, owe it everything.[37] They are still at the point of wanting to serve a “supreme giver of all good.” That society is no ego at all, which could give, bestow, or grant, but an instrument or means, from which we may derive benefit; that we have no social duties, but solely interests for the pursuance of which society must serve us; that we owe society no sacrifice, but, if we sacrifice anything, sacrifice it to ourselves — of this the Socialists do not think, because they — as liberals — are imprisoned in the religious principle, and zealously aspire after — a sacred society, e.g. the State was hitherto.

Society, from which we have everything, is a new master, a new spook, a new “supreme being,” which “takes us into its service and allegiance!”"

Money not being neutral refers to the fact that money has some sort of utility beyond being a medium of exchange (i.e. being hoarded during a crisis). It says nothing about the law of value and thus capital other than confirming it, which is what you were treating it as.

And it wouldn't be a market.

Changing the structure does not change the base - capital.

Whatever floats your boat.

I haven't looked into Chomsky, but from what I understand UG is not falsifiable and thus just as valid as anything Lacan came up with.

See this: . The point is not that Stirner didn't acknowledge it, but that his philosophy is contradictory and wrong.

The ego "can take the world as it is", i.e. take society as it is and act accordingly or choose not to participate in the existing order by going psychotic. Or "be it's own". Which one is it?

Listen, the point isn't that you owe anybody anything but that Stirner's existentialism is wrong.

You're placing a metaphorical narrative on psychological functions. I don't see why this is supposed to be convincing.

Because now anything a man does is not serving himself according to you!

You really don't understand anything Stirner was talking about, do you? Yes, you can do those things for egoistic reasons or non-egoistic reasons. And that will change from person to person! It is a personal set of ethics, it's not meant to be an all-encompassing framework of truth. At its heart, it's anti-universalist.

Maybe because it's utterly irrelevant the way you use it?

What is not supposed to be convincing?

Correcto. Nearly every action becomes then linked to the Other, and his wishes become yours.

What are "egoistic reasons" when these reasons are invariably connected to what you are to be for anOther?

It is relevant when you delude yourself into believing you can stop following the Law at will.

…even in a crisis, money still has its primary utility as a medium of exchange, or as a future medium of exchange.

Why? There would still be the production of commodities for exchange. Investing is becoming more centrally planned by the year, anyway, only by irrational principles.

Class is the base, not capital. Capital only has power as a set of social relations.

You mean like your philosophy is just a means to hand wave away the individual and make everything a person does a sign that they're a slave to society? All you've done is showed my that lacanians have immeasurable autism and see any uniqueness as a sign of psychopathy.

You say that we are only subjects of society!? I say society doesn't exist. Do you know why? Because, yes there is history, and there are others outside of me, I must accept the world as it existed, but I do not have to accept that it will stay this way. I can undermine the current order and change it to my advantage. What is outside of me now, is not society, but rather people with a lowercase p. You refer to society as literally everything I am. But that's just the way you've established your language. For, as you've admitted, negation could just as easily mean addition, and society the Ego. And why should I care? I am who I am. I am not you. And neither of us are Man. Why should I respect you in anyway beyond our actual, concrete relationship?

Egoism is the most radical form of atheism and materialism possible.

Except it wasn't existentialism. When he said "All things are nothing to me." that should have been clear.

It's very obvious you're just changing the connotations of facts to fit a narrative about the individual.

Lol, and you accuse egoism of being a philosophical dead end. Well then, congratulations user. (you) don't exist. you're just a vessel of society and its history. All your actions are predetermined, so it's alright if you give yourself up for Society, for the State, for History, or even for Capital! After all! You have no choice!

Why, that's actually an excellent case for egoism. I might as well give myself up for what gives me the most satisfaction, after all! That being me.

You know, now I understand why Zizek also borrows heavily from german idealism with his Lacanian analysis. If he didn't, there would be no point to anything he said!

Like I said, it's different from person to person. But we should be quick to identify what is concretely benefiting us, and what we are merely doing for an abstraction. I know I am not an abstraction though, if something is authentically hardwired into my mind, then obviously that is a part of me and doing things for it serves me. And if anOther is invariably connected to me, then it is my property, as are all things connected to me. And I can do with my property as I see fit.

But anyway I point you towards Zizek's comments on Christianity being the true path to atheism if you think it is impossible to accept the world as it really is, without spooks. And if that is possible, so is identifying yourself and your own interests.

Fucking square.

OP, discussion of decentralized planning alone is enough to fill libraries, considering it has never been tried.

also

Why do stirnerite faggots never read or understand Marx?

Lacanfags derailing discussion about markets with their obfuscating nonsense