Plekhanov's criticism of Max Stirner

...

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1895/anarch/
marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm)
youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig
marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/ch02.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

...

...

...

wot wot

eheheheh Stirnerfags btfo. Although it's very easy to debunk Max Stirner. Even Marx did it.

Plekhanov is a spook and Marx is moralist ragamuffin filth.

ABSOLUTELY SPOOKED

No he didn't.

Stirner was the first AnCap?

AnCap is as old as private individuals trading without a state. Same with AnCom minus the trading.

Where he wrote that, op? Got a pdf?

That's chapter III

marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1895/anarch/

Thanks.

So stirners conception of property is destructive and the union of egoists is utopianism?

DELETE THIS

Nice, good stuff.

the union of egos is not utopianism nor idealism, as it is not the goal of the egoist. only a byproduct of egoism, and not even a necessary one.

I read, like, half of this shit and I didn't see any criticism.
What's the point of the first two posts?

Based Plekhanov

Marxist social democracy was actually really solid and perhaps it would have been more suitable and less tragic for a Russian process of modernization than Leninism was, but Lenin won fair and square in the game of fill the power void and he did a good job, people. Very proud of him.

It's what I've been saying for a while, but knuckleheaded Stirnerfags on the board are incapable of processing critique of their meme and their general illiteracy keeps them incapable of even privately accepting they're agreeing to a meme.

Luckily, Stirnero-Bordigist egoist centralism mends his utopian delusions and his keen spirit can be utilized to create the ultimate vanguard.

besides, Stirner's union of egoists was hardly his main project, just a vague framework on how egoists could interact with each other.

Not even superficially coherent or memetically poignant smh.

Stirnerite egoist unionism and Bordigist organic centralism actually have functional gigantic overlap (first of all in that Stirner accepted the political economy development of duality of woker-capitalist, whereas Rousseau spoke in vague terms of people versus rulers), wherein for Stirner only if the self-interest of the whole union of egos is sated things are to be done, and for Bordiga only if the class-material interest of the communist horizon is completely unanymous centrally things are to be done. Both also having a disdain for sacrificing this consensus-led common good through compromises like a vote, which have the power to break the unity of individual members and their collective interest in always being in proper agreement; the agreement that their organization must be a ego-unitary organ.

Democracy is a spook only opportunists fall for, and Stirner critiqued the idealization of democracy itself to be a function spook: a concept we rapidly put up as holy without remembering that it represents a total sacrifice of the ego to fall for that which inevitably goes against individual interest through majority vote.

I just read about how, despite his huge influence on Russian marxists and the Second International, Plekhanov was not well-received by Marx and Engels and they were kind of skeptical of the first Russian marxists, placing instead their hopes on Populists like Chernyshevsky and the Narodniks.

Socialist politics is some fucking weird shit

smh. his theory in the social contract was simply a framework for a democracy that genuinely reflect the will of the people in the laws of the state, it has nothing to do with class. within the context of a dictatorship of the proleteriate, this means only that there are no longer capitalists to participate in government.

Because Rousseau was making a generalized theory applicable to all stages of development.

this is ayn rand tier autism about material self interest. what's more, if you need unanymous support to do something, you won't be able to govern effectively, contradicting the very reasons why Bordiga wanted centralism to be a principle anyway.

The Union of Egoists can barely be described as a system of government, or a model for society. it s simply a set of relations, relations which are almost certainly temporary. Just look at the examples he provides in stirner's critics:

I find Rousseauian democracy as the most egoist form of government, because it provides the most amount of freedom. It is a system where i have the most power in my government, no matter where I end up in society. The only spooky part of Rousseau's theory was his emphasis on reasoning being divinely inspired, but that actually is exactly why I can appropriate him, because rationality is at the very least a part of most people's egos, if not divinely inspired.

Sure, but there is a difference between "sacred" democracy, and democracy as such. As Stirner says again in "Stirner's critics" (referring to himself here in the third person)

Including the bourgeoisie. Class war != people's war. Rousseau being wise for his time doesn't mean we should completely drop [current year] developments and materialism in general.

Yeah.

Thus ignoring that the dictatorship of the proletariat is that period in which the organic union is non-opertional; it has done its job of ensuring proletarian hegemony is pertinent, and only the communist relation of production stand in the lower phase.

He doesn't, because he's neither a materialist or an egoist. Diderot, then Marx, Stirner and Bordiga make him irrelevant; he's the husk from which they took what is useful, and he's in the dustbin now, with free reign for the organic egoists to build creative communism.

Spook.

Opportunism.

Ectopportunity.

You can reconcile egoism with anything as long as you authentically desire what you are doing. An organic mode of organization is conducive to this, since none of your desires can ever be exempt from the process of creating and developing the revolutionary.

not if you eliminate the bourgeoisie first, dumbass.

Not according to Luxemborg.

He was a materialist operating in an idealist framework. Remove the framework and take what's still relevant, and you're still left with quite a bit.

kek

Do you just have zero reading comprehension? Greater freedom for me, means greater power as well, power over my own life and property.


The same can be said of the Rousseauian vision of lawmaking. Everyone has a credible voice and power. Where the majority overrule the individual, it is only by the fact that they have more might than the individual. (for if the individual had more might than them, and decided to use it, they would not be overruled!) I imagine though, most would agree to abide by certain rules, just as the children playing their games outside stirner's window might.

Not on the program for a democracy's functioning, because the very introduction of new productive relations annihilate democracy's core of voluntary participation (anything but an absolute majority vote would be intrepid on the core principle of democracy), which operates under bourgeois society.

For Luxemburg there is still a party which effects a real constitutive change not principled on popular support whatsoever. For Luxemburg the importance of democracy lies in the functioning of the communist organization, once again not the majority of any given society. Her immanent difference with Bordiga lies then simply in how the communist party should be structured, not any society post-capital, which even Bordiga differentiates (proletarian versus bourgeois democracy) but he goes a step further in believing the party form should be organic or that it will inevitably compromise the party's function itself:
(marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm)
Once again this is in line with Lenin's differentiating between a bourgeois and proletarian democracy, and Bordiga agrees that proletarian democracy is proper descriptor for post-capitalism. Like Lenin, however, he follows the Marxist line: there can be no communist and capitalist society living next to the other, for they are in direct contradiction and cannot fully assume their systemic function. This is how Lenin eternally BTFO democratic fetishists who do not see this, and Badiou in pic related lays it out quite nicely.

Word salad, as is your forte. I will however, with much interest and many chortles, ask you to tell me what you meant by this.

Any dialectical materialism does.

I do; I just have materialism on my side too. "Freedom" is relative to either the authenticity of the ego's situation-specific desires being able to effectures for Stirner, and for a materialist consequently entirely dependent on the coordinates any given mode of production gives in terms of freedoms, one's relation to production within these confines, but also one's duties and restrictions. You elevate freedom to both the status of a spook and an idealism.

t. Jean-Jacques "materialism within idealism" Rousseau

Bourgeois democracy.

Non-political economic conceptions of what the supposedly eternal condition and confines of man's individual options are and can be, not even once. Even Cantillon and Smith didn't fall into this trap, even though they were idealists who thought relations of power were eternally ones of slavery and servtitude (because like Rousseau in spite of this, they didn't perceive society through its material relations, but through a pure idealist-metaphysical framework of eternality!).

It's like the nigger never even read Stirner, pic related. Stirner doesn't command anyone to love.
Stirner was against sacrifice to an idea, but sacrificing oneself can be selfish because you care about your property
God has to exist for you to revolt against him
To be perfectly honest, Stirner doesn't even mention we should remove ourselves from spooks, just that spooks are spooks.
No it's not, because tyranny of any system oppresses the individual and so said egoist may ignore the state's laws not simply because he has reason to, but rather, he has no reason to listen to their laws. To argue against this you must first explain why laws are worth following, what follows then is up to the egoist's discretion.
Stirner didn't mean to say we should suddenly collapse into social darwinism but rather that the reasons behind the way we act change according to our self-interest; for example, if I believe that there is a god who wants me to give money to the homeless, it's because I believe in that spook. If I realize it is a spook, I will no longer abide by the thought process, HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I will stop giving homeless money, because I may want to because it pleases me. The reasons behind my actions changed yet the actions themselves remained the same. Such is consistent with egoism.
Harsh criticism but Stirner is ultimately correct. Plek here is starting to sound dangerously like a moralist…
Stirner NEVER said this.
The ego is the wholeness of one's being, so unless you're pushing for solipsism or anti-realism this isn't much an argument. The ego is not an idea, there may be some mix-up of words here.

Laws are spooks, and so their creation and "evolving" doesn't matter. Cry sum moar you pseudo-intellectual cunt.
This claim has no backing
Stirner never claimed a union of egoists is necessary, it is just something that arises when mutually interested voluntary egoists co-join another. "Should" is a spook.
Nowhere does Stirner claim an objective reality doesn't exist, this fag is just making shit up.
A union of egoists arises out of volunatry egoists mutually agreeing and co-joining one another but the critic here implies this can't be a real union because of some outside standard that has to be met for it to be a "real" union but this standard is merely a spook.
The critic says that Stirner had to explain class struggle but couldn't, but this was not Stirner's attention, this standard the critic has set fourth is merely disingenuous.
A synonym for "should", again, a spook, and nowhere does Stirner say they should combat the rich, just that they live in poverty for not doing so

Legality has nothing to do with it; law is a spook whether you want it to be or not, if I allow another MY property it's because I want him to have it, not because I weave legality.
Guilt-by-association fallacy
It's important to remember Marx hadn't finalized his ideas on communism by then and what Stirner was referring to were the authoritarian "communists/socialists" of his time
Wrong, he has what he has by might
Wrong, no words can describe the unique one
What is this? There's nothing hypocritical about it, Stirner seeks to use the state to his own advantage, the critic here claims his philosophy must be wrong because it exempts himself, but on the contrary, he is only using the state to his advantage. If you were to say "everyone must not have property" and own property, that would make you a hypocrite. If you were to say "everyone must haven not property but me" that is not hypocritical; regardless in both cases, Stirner isn't wrong just because he does it.

All in all, shit critque, Plekhanov-fuccboi 0/10 apply yourself.

Alas, even if it was hypocritical, what of it? Why obey the "rationality" of not being a hypocrite? As Stirner assures us, if reason is made out to be above ourselves, then reason would be my master, rather than me being its master (paraphrased) and so rationality would be a spook.

Stirnerfag, once again, admits to not having read The Ego and His Own

Anyways here's your fucking citation. Stirner spends quite a bit of time arguing against socialists and communists and people wonder why Marx and Engels had it out for him.

"All attempts to enact rational laws about property have put out from the bay of love into a desolate sea of regulations. Even Socialism and Communism cannot be excepted from this. Every one is to be provided with adequate means, for which it is little to the point whether one socialistically finds them still in a personal property, or communistically draws them from the community of goods. The individual’s mind in this remains the same; it remains a mind of dependence. The distributing board of equity lets me have only what the sense of equity, its loving care for all, prescribes. For me, the individual, there lies no less of a check in collective wealth than in that of individual others; neither that is mine, nor this: whether the wealth belongs to the collectivity, which confers part of it on me, or to individual possessors, is for me the same constraint, as I cannot decide about either of the two. On the contrary, Communism, by the abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still more into dependence on another, viz., on the generality or collectivity; and, loudly as it always attacks the “State,” what it intends is itself again a State, a status, a condition hindering my free movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts against the pressure that I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity.

Egoism takes another way to root out the non-possessing rabble. It does not say: Wait for what the board of equity will — bestow on you in the name of the collectivity (for such bestowal took place in “States” from the most ancient times, each receiving “according to his desert,” and therefore according to the measure in which each was able to deserve it, to acquire it by service), but: Take hold, and take what you require! With this the war of all against all is declared. I alone decide what I will have."

"In short, the property question cannot be solved so amicably as the Socialists, yes, even the Communists, dream. It is solved only by the war of all against all. The poor become free and proprietors only when they — rise. Bestow ever so much on them, they will still always want more; for they want nothing less than that at last — nothing more be bestowed."

spewks

Marx was a part of these same "authoritarian" communists(/socialists), and the clique of Young Hegelians he was a part of with Stirner (and others) displayed their familiarity with one another's ideas.

If that wasn't enough, biographies that show accounts of the Young Hegelians and their discourse shows that long before the release of Stirner's first public work, Ego, starting from 1831 and the inception of the Young Hegelians, they already knew of one another's prerogatives and critiqued one another on them.

Finally, unless Stirner wilfully ignored Marx's communism as you seem to chronologically insinuate, or "he disagrees, he didn't even read Marx lol" (how's that for turning a timeless Stirnerite meme around), Stirner knew full well of Marx's communism post-"authoritarian communists/socialists" meme you propose Stirner critiqued and your point is completely moot.

I just noticed this. This is a literal quote from The Ego and His Own. You're taking literal Stirner quotes and then using Stirnerspeak to refute them. I can't tell if this is a level of meta-irony I'm missing or your reading comprehension really is that poor.

Here, once again in The Ego and His Own: "There winds its way through Christianity the question about the “existence of God,” which, taken up ever and ever again, gives testimony that the craving for existence, corporeity, personality, reality, was incessantly busying the heart because it never found a satisfying solution. At last the question about the existence of God fell, but only to rise up again in the proposition that the “divine” had existence (Feuerbach). But this too has no existence, and neither will the last refuge, that the “purely human” is realizable, afford shelter much longer. No idea has existence, for none is capable of corporeity. The scholastic contention of realism and nominalism has the same content; in short, this spins itself out through all Christian history, and cannot end in it."

Third strike you're out. I don't understand why you're in this thread making Stirner apologetics that are full of factual errors because you haven't actually read Stirner.

That's very ahistorical of you. Even a democracy is brought about by a revolution. Rousseau admits as much.

Operating within the framework of proletariat democracy, yes.

Not the majority of society, but of the revolutionary class. All the workers together, that is.

She states explicitly, that while there should be a communist party, the dictatorship of the proletariat should not be a dictatorship of a party, but of THE PROLETARIAT!

I am also not here to defend bourgeoisie democracy, which is nothing less than committee management of wealth on behalf of the capitalists.

I mean exactly what I mentioned earlier. Rousseau based his theory on the divinity of reason, but we can extract idealism from his theory by extracting the divinity from reason, and thus be left with materialism.


You autism about attaching freedom to materialism is self defeating. Freedom is very much a subjective experience, as my will define's my freedom. And as such, only I can claim to speak for what free's me, not any party or committee.

lmao
youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

you got it assbackwards. It is precisely a political not economic conception of an individual's options. it is these lessons that we must salvage from liberalism, the observations that began with Machiavelli about class, states and individual power throughout history. Machiavelli and Rousseau's conception of revolution was grounded in history, unlike Hobbes and Locke's. Their theories are not of eternal conditions, but of how things tend to happen given a set of circumstances.

He also, as I quoted earlier in this thread, said this.
What he is really opposed to is both utopian and scientific socialism, which raises socialist conceptions of property, class and history above the individual. Socialism, as an appeal to one's ego, is perfectly fine.

That doesn't mean anything other than that an egoist can exist anywhere. Like the other poster who replied to you said, you can reconcile Egoism with anything. You can be a Stirnerite socialist who doesn't accept socialist conceptions of property, class, and history to be above him but don't be surprised when you're sent to gulag.

Why is a Marxist defending bourgeois democracy?
wut

This is precisely why it's considered by him a creative nothing. Whatever calls itself "I" has to form a self-concept by proxy. It may not be fixed, but the process of its creation does exist. Also, Stirner's purpose isn't to rail against ideas in general, but ones with no grounding, can not be realized, and that effect what he calls "owness".


It's still contingent on what people value, so no it's not. I can see nothing as being above me, but if I don't value my own autonomy, I may allow others to subvert it.


This I think is fair, since I'm not so sure how a union of egoist would function either. I see nothing wrong with trying to find a system that works with some of the principles he outlines, though.

This is the type of argument I'd expect to see from a social democrat. The state doesn't inherently act as a buffer to private property owners. Aslo, proles argue to keep the product of their labor, so they have property they wish to protect, too.

Yes I did, I read all his lit. i didn't remember that passage but again it's hardly a refutation.

wrong.

I didn't say he criticized Marx but criticized the authoritarian communists/socialists, not communism/socialism. The people, not the theory.

not an argument

The wording was wrong then, he didn't word it so good. Don't be retarded it's not my fault if he didn't direct quote.

You better read it again because you clearly did not comprehend anything the first time around. Also learn how to search a text.

I understand it fine, so just because I didn't get an exact result from what turned out to be a paraphrase I must not have gotten it? I expect to search an entire text for a quote that wouldn't match up? Don't be retarded.

And another thing, you still didn't disprove any of the other counterarguments, which shows that Plekhanov's critique was still bullshit

He didn't critique a whole bunch of people that either no longer existed (Fourrierian, Owenists and other classical utopian socialists and communists), never really did anything in their time and ignore his biggest peer's rising in influence communist theory: Karl Marx, who had yet to do much either but actually already had massive influence in the German labor movements by that time.

Once again, you're either making Stirner look bad by saying he's critiquing long-dead corpses but not its biggest contemporary, or you're very unhappy with Stirner's critique of then-contemporary communism.

Failing to defend critique = reaffirming the critique's poignancy. The best way to ruin a cause is to defend it poorly. Or not reading the literature relevant to said cause or being capable of ctrl + Fing it for citations after the fact, of course.

I was somehow able to do it without any difficulty. The "war of all against all" I actually remembered even though it's been years since I read Stirner. You clearly don't understand it because you fail to recognize Stirner's own wording, rhetoric, and arguments and separate them from Plekhanov's. You mistook what Stirner actually said for Plek's satire and tried to refute it using your mangled understanding of Stirner.

nice spooks nerds

Wasn't there several authoritarian movements under the guise of socialism/communism at the time? I wasn't referring to the academics

But that doesn't prove me wrong, if his arguments are sound then you should be able to refute the claims I made, so go ahead

I work better with direct quotes
Satire wording makes for a poor medium of argument maybe his fuckups is the reason he doesn't sound so good.

For you, maybe

Sorry I didn't memorize the book word-for-word.

And stop saging.

Why do you care? Bumping this thread only makes your absolute retardation more visible.

Not an argument, try again retard.

Again, as I implied before by putting it in quotes, no socialist or communist movement has ever bothered to advertise itself on "authoritarian" or "non-authoritarian" lines. Even the most conceptual and utopian ideas for socialism or communism that called themselves as such sought to achieve their goals with violence if necessary, and since they already identified class society as being constitutive of capitalism, thus also consequently always said basic violence against the ruling class would be necessary. Just like Marx, they did envision an alternative that would be free of violence or human insitutions and order managing the economy either, although Marx concluded this not from vision first, but from thinking about matter in motion, seeing that any society without a law of value would still be subject to communal living, which is stratified and institutional.

Academics or not, the above applies. For the biggest two I named before Marx, Charles Fourier and Robert Owen lived before education was even state-mandated, and they largely developed because their economic conditions let them finance the time and tools to devise anti-capitalist ideas as they were either sons of bourgeois parents or statesmen.


Point being that you made no real counter-arguments except a jpeg showing Stirner's feelings, not anything theoretically supporting his ideas, and most of the rest was shown to either be shoddy interpretation on your part, misreading on your part or fabrication on your part; whichever it is I cannot tell and your case is either made to look foolish, illiterate or sophist on your part.

(And they would then also not bother to align themselves with these movements, but with anarchism or progressivism instead, which were also bustling international movements concerned with either outright opposing or radically limiting capital's power respectively.)

Plekhanov's blogpost reads like a moralist-fixated commentary that betrays a thinly-veiled argument of "I can';t make egoism work with communism so it's no use to me"

Even if that's the case, the arguments he has is that

Among the others. Please go back and actually read it.

Edgy.

Plekhanov was not a practical communist; he was merely a Marxist. His primary plan for Russia was actually one of industrializing it through social democratic reform. He was here motivated by the same things that Lenin felt he was forced to do with a poorly-equiped Russia against the reactionary Whites in the Ukraine, preying western liberal democracies and the rise of fascism in Italy, but not through this state capitalist method of NEP.

So he doesn't reject Stirner's philosophy because it's incompatible with communism. He rejects it because he sees in it little more than a radical nominalism that can't compete with material analysis, and his parallels to the state are designed to show that within any situation, a practical egoism through Stirner has the absolute interest of utilizing state structures. His subject-oriented position of the ego is also seen as self-developing; "ego" is at once supposed to be synonymous with any individual subject but magic makes this ego an egoist, not an ideological formation through matter.

STIRNER IS A HACK

So in other words, "it's not apart of my view so it must be wrong?"
Can you elaborate on this? And also Stirner made a distinction of the voluntary egoist versus the involuntary egoist, whereas the former does things for himself and the latter for reasons outside himself.

nice

why do they deny their self-interest so much? don't they love themselves?

Tom, Dick and Harry are being forced to fuck and basically this guy is advocating rape gangs.


no, ancaps and mutualists believe in natural rights, that property is an inherent quality of an object, rather than the use force to exert control over the object .

pure fetishism

Nah, we disdain the sin not the sinner. There's a difference between action and being, or ideology and personhood. The intention and framework of atheism is also different from person to person, a traditional asian Buddhist will be an atheist for different reasons, and have a different world view than say an edgy western fedora who ironically practices satanism and adores Dawkins and Crowley. Not all atheists are the same and we don't hate people for being misguided.

Regarding Stirner I think his theory of spooks has become a spook itself, anyone who takes it seriously doesn't understand that it eats itself…. Like most forms of relativistic deconstructionisms it has no objective foundation.

Post avant jazzcore is better than progressive dreamfunk.

Oof, a lot of misreading or misinterpretation there, my dude.

I was here saying that democracy under any society is not a democracy for the whole mass of its people, but a democracy designed by its ruling class, instituted through the volition of the ruling class and in service of the ruling class. Here even Rousseau sees the obvious: that even if he is ultimately for his form of democracy (just like communists are for theirs: proletarian democracy), the very act of breaking down current democratic measures invariably occurs through a violent, non-democratic break. It's the material principle of reform not being capable of being its own revolution out of anything and, as I've said before, even if ultras take the principle of precipitating matters towards revolutionary moments, they understand that this moment still requires organization to here capitalize on fragility and violently break free from all democratic things as they are. Tantamount again to my statement on Luxemburg and the general revolutionary principle of authority being mandatory, and ultras taking this to the extreme by structuring all things pre-postcapitalism to embody this principle.

Of course. Where did I say otherwise? The point is that a communist party or other organization creates a space in bourgeois society which actively resists all bourgeois "democratic" interventions into its process of overthrowing it. These microcosms of proletarian organization are its form of "democracy", or as Badiou defines it: power of a particular demos within the universal of the greater demos. They will, if they truly stand principle to every overthrowing bourgeois society, perform the violently anti-democratic break of not just ignoring the resistance of the bourgeoisie to their project, but that of the non-voluntary working class either. There is no alternative to this that isn't a pseudo-revolution (one that believes simple recoordinations of bourgeois society constitute an overthrow of capitalism) or outright reform and/or class treason.

>[For Luxemburg the importance of democracy lies not in the functioning of the communist organization, but that of the entire class]; All the workers together, that is.
Luxemburg again says the same thing I did. Unless you think Luxemburg wants us to wait until every single worker is a card-carrying member of the KPD before it makes an attempt at overthrowing capitalism, you've completely missed the communist principle, or any revolutionary principle for that matter. This entirety of the class is effectuated through revolutionary proletarian organization's conscience of a universal working class interest in overthrowing capitalism: the party form is here but one of its motors and, for Bordiga and Luxemburg, the ideal one, and for Bordiga even more ideal if the party operates organically.
(Cont.)

Dangit.

Idem.

See: Critique of the Gotha Program, in which Marx touches upon the invariable traps idealist conceptions of the world led to when conceiving of new ideas, because the Gotha Program was an idealist one, just like Rousseau's. State and Revolution then is also a good read, because Lenin goes over Marx's passages and applies the consequent implications of unraveling the contradictions to Marx's critique.

Anti-universalism outright. Are you sure you're a revolutionary?

You took this from me replying to you on Rousseau's concept of democracy, which is bourgeois, then to imply that I said that bourgeois democracy is built on majority rule. Here you don't just put words in my mouth, but ignore my main point: bourgeois "democracy" is democracy shaped to be as the bourgeoisie sees fit to serve it, its society and the delusions of the subjected class. Bourgeois democracy can never function to truly damage bourgeois society, because it is designed not to and once again the very principle of any ruling class's democracy rests on the ethical superiority upon which it is projected to be: to exclude at all times the suggestion that there is more than a people under a society (i.e. classes) and that it must be overthrown in the interests of the under class.

Is this the "materialism within idealism" you were talking about?

Bumping with dank Luxembae quote pic I made, since she's the subject anyways.

WRONG

marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/ch02.htm

That's not how philosophy and theoretical frameworks function, dude. What Plekhanov demonstrates, using the outline of Stirner's philosophy versus Marx's, is that Stirner's philosophy on its own ends up in a tangled web free of any associative conception of the ego, then when mirrored to Marx's it's completely dead. Reread it.
Stirner's ego is an idealism and the concept of egoism is not so just because of this observation, but because egoism itself creates the paradox of "there is no duty" within the framework of "the egoist's duty is to have no duty". This creates an ontological break within which Stirner's egoism, unlike for example Nietzsche in which Zarathustra imposes clearly a duty-derived buildup from metaphysics, completely ends up in a position where things can at once never be separated from a subject, but the subject has full coming into being independent of the surrounding he supposedly has a duty in to calculate his "self-interest".

And then he proceeds to post:
>He has property; that is, in its second acceptation, the right of domain.
In which Proudhon lays out the social formation of law under which laws, duties and freedoms such as right (that is in this case, the right to property) as underpinning his prose.

So tell me buddy, do you ever think before posting things or linking to texts that just sound really whimsical and pretty but then are either completely unrelated to the prior subject, feature two entirely unrelated subjects, two entirely unrelated individuals (Stirner and Proudhon) and their principles (egoism versus mutualism, N.B. in which the latter has no conception of egoism and treats their ideal model for society as one in which there is collective property along the lines of collective firms and single credit unions)? Is it one of those things or is it in fact that you don't really much of them at all but just gloss over things that sounds nice in your head, but aren't?

stirner's ideology falls apart to anyone who actually reads it

are you retarded? Proudhon strictly makes the distinction between property as a natural occurance and as a social construct


when he speaks about the right to domain, as a property, he talks about making use of the right to domain, not that the right to domain is part of him, the right to domain is not the property of man, merely the possession of make use of said right

you should tell us, do you actually understand what you are screeching about?

pure libertarian revisionist history. ancaps are an entirely 20th century phenomenon.

you can be an egoist and not give a fuck if we ever win or not. that's not the point. the point is to shed oneself of ridiculous mental obstructions that we create to cope with socializing and nature. The absolute abstraction, the creative nothing is a valid REAL. Its the only REAL and it has no need for proof or even evidence of its own status as REAL. It precedes the idea of ideas, its the very source of idea. Stirner unwittingly, or whomever was responsible for writing that book, stumbled on Vedic/Zen philosophy without having access to the language nor the inclination to connect it with his ideas. This idiot whose "refuting" him is shadow boxing with his own perceptions and abstractions. Stirner's Ego is there no matter what for everyone and every sapient being always. Its the faculty of discrimination, which is why property and the separation of the individual from the group are its prime functions. It expands out and consumes, other people restrict its movements. Stirner was working from an extremely primordial, almost completely intuitive basis for his union of egoists. People brought together by nothing but total, honest, unspooked, self interest is the natural source of friendship and culture. The artists, bohemians and luminaries of enlightenment europe embody this more than any era i think. The way they were magnetically drawn to each other and all mutually contributed to their search for knowledge and beauty was a classic example of organic association. The way that animals mate in mass is another fantastic example of this, as is the swarm behavior of birds and fish. Humans contrived, imaginary mental schema/projections that guide them through life and inform their behavior are a problem. They've caused us to create lunatic paradigms of thought like Capitalism and Totalitarian Military Government. People on this board who shit on Stirner are almost always in the wrong. He's definitely not without reasons for critique but this is a poor attempt at mischaracterizing how he thought about the Subject, something we see again and again materialists incapable of understanding.

i've just started reading The Ego and its Own and all I can say so far is it's fucking annoying to read

hhmm…

my father's hand*

Is this an expression or something, or does she mean she saw Marx literally reading it?

Because it seems to have been published in the 90s, more than a decade after Marx's death.

she means Plekhanov wrote it as if Marx would, or in his line of thinking/influence at least.

I stand corrected, in regards to proudhonists.
But ancaps do believe in property rights as an natural law derived from self ownership.
They also in advocate the principle of non aggression, "the NAP", as a core part of their political ideology. So I still believe calling Stirner an ancap is wrong.

Nowhere does it command you to be an egoist
Nowere does Stirner say we *should* follow our own self-interest.

No shit. That's why I support a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Except ultras don't actually do anything.

On the contrary, while there must be proletarian organization, it must also exist within a structure that allows for plurality and a resistance, specifically a proletarian plurality and resistance. The only way full communism will ever be achieved is if both the state and the resistance to it want to achieve it. And anyway, I'm not talking about a revolution, which of course operates on purely warlike dynamics of power, but a transition to communism from socialism.

I think you misunderstand what the dictatorship of the proletariat is. It is not the revolution in of itself, but created through an act of revolution and is the transition to communism.

Marx hardly escaped idealism himself, though, admittedly he tried hard in his later years.

kek, you mean the same place you get these little gems from (pics related)

I reject universalism of truth, but universalism in politics is a quite useful tool.


Rousseau put forward a hypothetical system where everyone has a credible voice in lawmaking, you called this bourgeois, but then you contradict yourself by saying bourgeois democracy operates by class domination. The fact is, if everyone does have a credible voice, the bourgeois cannot dominate. Obviously, this is impossible in capitalism. But I think you overestimate just how much the lower classes support the capitalist state. They support it only enough not to revolt for the moment. However, If you ask them, they almost always disagree with its direct actions.

the ultimate cause of all political actions are material conditions, however, politics also reflects back on the material conditions. It is an over-determined relationship. there's nothing wrong with trying to understand how a certain political situation which tends to turn out, indeed, if you look at Rousseau and Machiavelli, their answers always come out as "x can happen from this political crisis/phenomena given y material conditions".

Marx's failure of an attempt was so bad that people avoided translating it for years.