MLM here. I've been recently researching egoism, and, so far, I really like it. I was wondering if this was an accurate description of it: pastebin.com
(I wrote this as a way of studying, as it helps a lot, strangely, like how taking notes makes you memorize things better.)
Note that the pastebin was originally meant for Pierre Tru-Dank since I literally knew of no other egoists.
Other urls found in this thread:
theconjurehouse.com
twitter.com
SPOOK
What is that? A Marxist-Leninist-Maoist?
Pastebin is bretty good. To note however, nowhere does Stirner actually state that one should follow their own self-interest. "Should" implies an external standard to be followed and thus is a spook. If you want to follow your self-interest, fine, but you have no obligation to.
If you're done reading The Ego and Its Own, here's the other works written by Stirner you might like.
I'm right here, fam
Yeah, weird, right? A Marxist-Leninist-Maoist tankie liking egoism. The pastebin was made after spending an hour turning 27 pages of notes into an essay of sorts. I'm glad it turned out at least decent. And thank you for the clarification. I haven't finished The Ego and Its Own yet. I plan to as soon as I can. Will likely pick up a copy later.
Also, if you could provide an explanation of how an egoist society would work / be structured, similarities with a communist society, how it would come about, (etc.) that'd be great.
Don't forget to read through this:
theconjurehouse.com
Hey, honest question here, since we don't have many Maoists on the board from what I've seen, what's your take on things like Red Guards Austin and Serve the People LA, it seems like a lot of MLM groups and collectives are springing up all at once nowadays.
I'm quite fond of pretty much any Maoist organization. I don't know much about them. The only "Maoist" organization I disapprove of is the RCPUSA.
From what I understand RCPUSA hasn't been Maoist since the '90's, since they believe that Avakian's "New Synthesis" is some kind of new higher stage of Communist theory beyond Marx, Lenin, and Mao. What New Synthesis is, however, seems to elude even their cadres, because I've yet to see or meet a single person who can explain what it is.
Which sucks, because RCP in the 70's seemed pretty decent.
Thanks for posting this
I know that Egoists technically can believe anything, and as far as philosophies go it's incredibly non-perscriptive in this sense, but would you say that most Egoists are Post-Left? Can Egoists engage in class struggle? Is the idea of Communism a spook? (I mean Communism as a classless and stateless society, not Communism as Social Democracy or State Capitalism)
Particularly, is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat antithetical to a Union of Egoists?
...
Stirner believed that if the workers decided to revolt against capitalism they could do so. As long as it is in their own interest. All it requires is critical thought when it comes to the outcome of said class struggle. If the result is getting shot by the police within the hour. Then maybe it isn't a great idea. If instead there is a high chance of success, and the end result will benefit you then it is valid from an egoist perspective (from a proletarian/peasant perspective the USSR was an immense improvement compared to feudal Russia).
The union of egoists is different from a dictatorship of the proletariat. Since it becomes difficult to part ways with the DotP. The DotP they might label you as counter-revolutionary if you leave the cause. The result of the revolution might not be what you set out to do. It becomes close to impossible to achieve your own vision once you have to compete with the DotP. There is, after all, a reason why Stirner didn't like the idea of how to achieve communism. Since it is prone to embracing spooks to achieve its goals. Such as cult of personality, nationalism, idealist thinking and dogmatism.
The idea of communism in itself isn't a spook if you deconstruct it into its key elements. Classless/moneyless society seeks to eliminate the spook of money as a way to determine hierarchy and offhandedly calling it a meritocracy. The key point of egoism is the keep vigilant when it comes to what ideas you follow. Where did those ideas come from, and how do they shape your decisions.
no u lel
Friendly reminder
Hey, are you the Leftcom who was starting threads about Monsieur Dupont's Nihilist Communism a day or so ago? Those were good threads.
No, I was not, however, I find nihilism to be a philosophy which can effectively be used when necessary or useful. In certain situations, it is more sobering to see things from a nihilist perspective. Instead of letting anger and restless emotions take hold.
This pleases my ego.
Proof of this claim?
Egoism is whatever you want it to be. It is a philosophy and not necessarily a political movement.
>property of stefan stirner
I love it.
Here's a copy
Stirner speaks of a Union of Egoists, where people will come together of their own free will (conscious egoism) to work together in their goals. If their goals are not being meant or if they are staying in the group when they don't like it/it doesn't benefit them, the union has degenerated into something else and they would be better off breaking away from it.
Capitalist societies pressure us into unions we don't want, such as employers and bosses, they don't want to be together, the union is not voluntary. Communism would assure voluntary unions are helpful all around and those that want to leave are free to do so and so exist without pressure.
yw
butthurt
Union of Egoists is egalitarian, Stirner himself started a co-operative milkshop
Yeah, I'm a butthurt by a philosophy that produces no revolutions.
dropped
That means you're a child.
Remember to read Stirner's Critics afterward.
Well if you see Communism as the real movement which accomplishes the present state of things instead of just some abstract idea, then Communism is no spooky
Since when do philosophies ever produce revolution?>>1610449
Yeah, it produces insurrections.
Permanent insurrection not permanent revolution ok. Praise nothing.
One can only define the self when one defines what is not the self. Ergo self implies other. Voluntary and involuntary action appear separate from our perspective, but this separation is an illusion. Nothing separates you from God because the part of God you call "you" is an arbitrary distinction, symptomatic of our language.
However, it is human nature to be susceptible to egoism. God is an actor. In the same way an actor becomes so absorbed in his role as to become that role, so you have become yourself.
You are (not) God.
Namaste.