I will preface this by saying I am not an anarchist, nor do I lean left economically. I am just here to discuss some inconsistencies that I think may exist because I am autistic and want to know. Nor do I even use Holla Forums.
How do ancoms somehow manage to shoehorn both Stirners idea of an egoist anarchy and Marx's communism?
Shouldn't they be exclusive, or at least in disagreement since egoism is inherently individualistic and communism is inherently collectivist? (Unless I am completely mistaken on the intent of anarcho communism, which I might well be.)
How does "Fuck you I take what I want stop me" manage to mesh with "Yo, fuck class and shit and lets seize the memes of production so that we can share the spoils and reap what we sow"? What if an egoist says "gimme your shit it's mine now" even though he already has his share? On another note, what would happen to dissidents in a left anarchist society? Wouldn't suppressing them be paradoxically authoritarian and therefore not anarchy but if you don't suppress them it becomes an individualist anarchism and not an anarcho communist society?
So in the breakdown of an anarcho communist society, it becomes an authoritarian regime, or an individualist anarchy.
If such inconsistencies do exist, why would some of you hold both philosophers in the same regard? Hell, if you don't even agree with complete individualism why bother memeing this man Stirner in the first place aside from the fun value of saying "SPOOK" and disregarding someones argument on the basis that it's a figment of the mind?
…so apparently the abolition of capital is distinctively collectivist when individualistic interpretations and applications of the related struggle (such as individual empowerment through ability to distribute and use surplus) exist? Meanwhile, Stirner's egoism advocates the expansion of one's wealth by any means and does not permit the ego to be integrated into society? Individuals cannot find strength within the advancement of collective and vice versa?
Stirner's logic reduces itself to pragmatism; Marx's methodology has been shown by various empirical Marxians to be extremely useful in its analysis relative to conventional economics, and this is just one way in which it is useful.
To my knowledge, ancoms will often 'solve' the problem of thieves by mentioning post-scarcity, human tendencies under such a system and as a last resort the wills and powers of other people.
William Perry
lol spooked af tbqh fam
Luis Lopez
Like I said, I could be mistaken, but I thought ancom entailed everyone must be working of their own ability in order to maintain society together, but with no currency because there should be enough things for everyone to be happy. Suppose everyone piles their things in one big pot to be distributed. My scenario is that one person who just got his alloted thing really likes a thing and states it is his and then takes another from the pot, taking it from the collective society and for himself. The person is an outlier to the ideal individual who really wants two things instead of the one thing his is alloted and steals the thing. He does not care for the advancement of society, only increasing his power through having more things than his comrades.
What happens then? Replace dissident with thief in the paradox and you have the same paradox.
Also wouldn't value and society be a spook?
Bentley White
Egoism is not inherently individualistic as saying that really disregards the importance of the unique's intercourse with its property (which includes other unique ones). For example, Stirner does explicitly say in Stirner's Critics that he is not against socialists, but sacred socialists.
Egoists are not some crazy feral animal who'll attack you in your sleep, except those who actually will do that. Don't disregard the social interactions of a unique one, it is at the core of experience after all. The memery of "I'm taking your property" is useful to really enforce our lack of morality, but makes everyone think we're rabid dogs.
Sort of. He does explicitly say "take what you require!" I believe, but it's more of just to enforce the moral nihilism and the abstraction that is private property. There would be non-moral repercussions to certain actions, especially so in a union of egoists. Stirner's polemic isn't against society, but "sacred" society.
Samuel Green
Yeah I did oversimplify the ideologies a tad didn't I?
He does state that groups of egoists can be in agreement (and by extension form a society), and I suppose I can see how anarcho communism can work in a society full of egoists in agreement.
That is, until one becomes in disagreement for whatever reason. Now it is an issue of conflict between the individual's desires and the societies desires, which should lead to the thief/dissident paradox unless there is some logic I am missing.
Dominic Baker
There would be structures in place to settle disagreement in a union, how that could be put in place macro without becoming a faceless "write your complaints here and nobody will get back to you" is the challenge though.
Dissidents/Thiefs would depend. If the structure is put in place there would be of course rules that come with it. Rehabilitation is always an option, how to do that without moralizing is near impossible. Most of the time they'll just be killed to keep them from damaging the integrity of the union.
Matthew Foster
Read your first post more clearly, sorry. Is it authoritarian to send someone to their death out of the integrity of yourself (which would include the union, as you retain it as your property)?
Ethan Fisher
Wouldn't the committee almost become a judicial system/planning system which would become a pseudo state as you centralize the power to that committee? That would be authoritarian.
However, if you choose to mob justice the thing thief/dissident without any committee, that would be still technically anarchistic, yes? But you can see how that is impractical for every petty crime?
I am going to go to sleep now, I'll read your replies in the morning if the thread is still up.
Christopher Anderson
Found you, Tina. Tits or GTFO.
Value and society are spooks but spooks are to be used; to discard all spooks is a fixed idea which can be disregarded and is itself a spook. Use and utility cannot be ignored because to ignore it would require some use to an individual's aims.
Even given thieves, individual gain and consumption can be used for collective gain. As an example, if someone steals food and consumes it then the faecal matter which comes out the other end can be used as fertiliser. There is still a loss for the society excluding the relevant individual but it can be minimised.
I was critiquing those two interpretations of Stirner; maybe I was too implicit.
Levi Edwards
no
Robert Morales
I was going to actually sleep but that zinger roused me. since some spooks can be justified, why wouldn't more spooks such as private property or morality be justified if the only justification for it to not be a valid as it's spook is a spook?
These paradoxes!
Jeremiah Ramirez
because private property does not benefit you as an egoist. To have property is to devote yourself to maintaining that property at the cost of your own individuality.
William Gomez
That's an ancap meme-tier analysis of individualism and collectivism. Communism is collectivist is the sense that everyone is in it together as opposed to Capitalist individualism where no one is in it together and you have to constantly look out for yourself, often at the expense of others. Being a belligerent robber necessarily makes you a social outcast, severely reducing your quality of life just because you decided to be an asshole. Then everyone else tells his greedy ass to fuck off. Yes. There is no contradiction. There cannot be a Communist society unless it it also individualist anarchist, otherwise people are being coerced into a system they do not want. Individualist Anarchism is not about wild free-for-all, it's just a primarily concerned with the freedom and wellbeing of the individual above all else, which does not necessarily conflict with the ancom concern for the masses.
I think they just have a mental illness that allows incompatible things to exist together. I mean didn't Stirner say all property including personal property is not by right but by might? Basically if you can steal it from someone it's not theirs. You could go into someone's home while they are at work and claim it as yours. This is the kind of shit a bratty 10 year old would come up with.
Josiah Adams
I hate you idiots because you always say it's fucking edgy or some shit. Yes that doesn't mean go fucking steal your neighbours shit, because you're probably going to get fucked up. Stirner was just being materialistic at its finest. Your property is what you have power over, not by the grace of some absraction (law).
You understand that private property isn't fucking real right? Like pretty much anybody else here?
Jayden Reyes
It should be what you regularly use not what you use power over. Whether he meant it or not people still take it can that way.
Michael Lopez
When I say right I mean protections of law or social code of conduct not something you're born with.
Jack Taylor
there is no such thing as societies desires. the moment society becomes a fixed idea and people start to flail it around as if it's some sort of god that demands sacrifices it falls into the cesspool of spookery
Christopher Allen
Reducing dialectical egoism to 'gimme all yur shit' is a fine example of strawmanning. If you seriously want to discuss this show some comprehension.
Connor Perez
I never said it should be static. It should differ depending on all people involved on what they agree on with eachother.
John Cox
Might presupposes right every time. Powerless cannot exercise their rights, and that is a given in every state/society/organisation. By Stirner's logic only balance and formal equity of power allows for union of egoists
Dylan Howard
I suppose it would work like realpolitik in daily life. When someone is going on rampage like Germany '39 other egoists cooperate in self-defense. I imagine it's more profitable to demand apologies/reparations than waste a bullet on some sceeching autist.
