Max Stirner

"Retards" is precisely what Stirner would have called someone who believes in democracy in any shape or form.

You're talking to a guy who could be described as left communist (I'm a fan of the Marxist side of the communization perspective) and I have qualms with democracy but do not go as far as to say that it is entirely useless or abstract it from an option just because
Even the Leninist and left communist polemic against democracy while harsher than mine was not that vulgar and autistic.

and he'd be right. democracy is one history's biggest scams

But he wouldn't. If there is a problem with democracy, as with anything ever, it is its fetishization. Democracy, as Marx said, is to be the riddle of history finally solved. Communism is itself the most ultimately democratic thing in essence: it assumes an entire historical human perspective and overthrows it of all the elements that prevent democracy from being daily reality. It takes the real material interests of every human being by utilizing the revolutionary subject of proletariat to instrumentalize a divine violence against the shackles that have chained humanity to class society for so long, that have until now made democracy indeed nothing but a scam. This movement, itself more despotic or democratic depending on whether it best suits it, is in and of itself already democratic in this way, and will ultimately birth in a communist society that will be wholly democratic by its very nature. Stirner's poor and lifestylist regurgitation of the worst of interpretations of Hegelian idealism, is utterly pale when in comparison to such a reality, let alone just the Marxist analysis that helped sketch it out for us.

yes especially mental disorders

yes, that's one of its problems. another is the stupidity and gullibility of the average person and the demos they comprise. the average person is not equipped to make decisions that will affect the lives of others. democracy is just another form of tyranny

Ladies and gentleman, the Stirnerite's attitude vis a vis the proletariat, here for you on display.

It's almost as if the average person is not born an "idiot" (subject that is unaware of their material position and predicament in society), but rather becomes an "idiot" because their reproduction of daily life, the sensuous activity thereof, emerges within them the ideology of bourgeois society (without mentioning the additional indoctrination subjects under capitalism consciously implement into one another). It's almost as democracy under this paradigm can only be but a scam, and that communist consciousness where it arises embodies in its activity against capitalism the true democracy, and works towards the establishment of this true democracy as a reality: a society in which democracy is and can be daily life; where there are no shackles upon not just our activity but also our consciousness and ability to spend energy on reasoning with rationale. Stirner's own vocal disgust for democracy in every shape and form shows and reaffirms that it is the logical endpoint of his own circular system of thought.

You are so theoretically bankrupt that it is no wonder that your kind is only found on shitposting forums (and in its lowest tiers) and not within the ranks of those who actually think about the workers' movement, critique it or even engage with it, where there is actual relevance of the social anarchist or communist kind.

Keep crying my property.

when the u.s. was planning to invade and destroy iraq, the average american citizen couldn't locate iraq on a world map (destroying iraq and killing a million people had overwhelming popular support, btw). you think speaks well to the intelligence of the average voter? until john q. citizen stops wilfully electing criminals, murderers and tyrants, and supporting their crimes, i have no reason to think him anything other than an idiot; one who should certainly have no influence over my life and destiny, and whose power i should seek to mitigate as much as possible
so democracy can't function positively without first achieving a communistic society. let's then work to achieve communism and later worry about a democracy that isn't shit. until then, the democracy we have now is a tyranny and deserves our contempt

The very notion of wealth inequality and any moral judgements attached to it are spooks. Get over it faggots.

so are the ideas that inequality should be respected and that people should "know their place"

But inequality is against the self interest of the average person. Who said anything about moral judgements?

ANNILS DO IT AGAIN!

You completely ignored everything I said on the subject of calling this an immutable stupidity and instead went on to vulgarize what I said on communism.

That's all fine and dandy but then you realize that while the movement towards communism before truly establishing a communist society starts out despotically, it by no means absolutely needs to avoid organizing itself democratically as such. You agreed with me before that the problem with democracy is its fetishization: its elevation towards an absolute principle upon which everything else must stand, but then refuse to see that it is possible (and desirable) for the organic movement that is communism to consult the desire of every militant communist worker in order to advance, not just because it is "fair", but because communism is a living and breathing movement, and that as soon as it shows signs of militant activity it also has important and vital things to say on the future of the movement, hence its success largely increases the more communism can be inter-represented.

As Lenin, one of the bigger critics of democracy, he showed that according to the logic of class analysis, there are two types of democracy: proletarian democracy (democracy represented by the communist movement) and bourgeois democracy (democracy represented by bourgeois society). He then asserts the supremacy, in extension and intensity, of the former over the latter, and yet the former is always expressed two different ways: in the first instance as the character of a minority of workers with no way of asserting the interest of communism (true democracy) in a non-despotic way, in the second instance as the character of a mass of active workers that can now internally and democratically work towards the hegemonization of true democracy towards communism. Democracy within the mass thrusted forwards must first be rendered desirable for this movement itself as an extending tool that helps reaffirm their own communistic interests.

Similarly, Bordiga had no problem with this dichotomy, as he opens in his critique of democracy:
Bordiga's point though, was that just like Lenin he saw the invariant expression of the communist movement as vanguardistic where it arises (starting despotically, shaping itself as a centrality), but that if this internal democracy is to truly remain a democracy, it must not split between separate groups within militancy, resulting in one democratic centrality that, in its isolation, exerts its force over the democratic externality in a despotic way. This "organic" centrality for him would thus, never splitting and decentralizing itself, always represent the total actvity of worker militancy, and would express democracy naturally by consequence.

We see here that two of the most harsh critics of democracy did merely just that: critique it, shave off its fetishistic interpretations, and actually within them remained a democratic expression that was much more nuanced and functional.

And what did Stirner give us? "Things stop being those things if you just stop believing in them" and "lmao every assessment I make is a spook because I feel like it".

You don't even understand Stirner's axiom of consciousness. To Stirner's credit, not all things are innately spooks. Things become spooks when (we, others) let them control our consciousness and prevent the expression of our true consciousness. This is of course excellent for all the reasons, N.B. that consciousness cannot appear unto itself, as I've outlined ITT, but if Stirner innately thought those things were spooks he wouldn't have glorified certain workers' movements in his texts (albeit always very idealistically).

...

You can't even properly construct a strawman of my views that supposedly strawman you, see:

Stirnerites are if anything first and foremost radical anti-liberals, but that's also all there is to it.

It's also cringey as fuck to cry "strawman" on any corner of the internet that isn't lolbertarian. You're above that shit. Give me some substance that doesn't start from ficticious critiques and actually challenges the real critique without ebin maymays and appeals to the standpoint epistomology of another individual (ironic, coming from Mr. Edgegoist).

because you haven't presented any reason to doubt the conclusion that the masses are stupid and generally worthless, and an impediment to societal change
which is no longer a possibility as the average contemporary worker is violently opposed to socialism/communism. the "working class" long ago rejected leftism, and enthusiastically adopted the ideology of the republican party; that's what they now and will continue to "work towards"

things aren't as they were in the 19th century or the 1910s. the demos doesn't want communism; it's persona non grata; thus its establishment through democratic movements is no longer possible. it will have to be forced into being through extreme and ruthless yet disciplined violence against all its barriers and opponents, by a concerned and enlightened minority or "vanguard," perhaps in the aftermath of a coming crisis or disaster. communism has to take power, without hesitation and concern for "spooks" like law or morality or "what is right;" that's why i like stirner's general position even though i can't consider myself a total stirnerite

I gave you an ontological examination of this category you call "stupidity" and why it is in fact poorly described by such an adjective, and how and where democracy in regards to this category can play a role.

It always was, empirically. Of course the communist movement, before its eclipse, was relatively much larger than it was today, but it always pathetically small. My classic example is the one in Russia during the October revolution: not even 5% of the Russian working class (itself a minority class subdivided with the peasantry) was for it, and only an even smaller part actively participated. Consequently, the Bolsheviks seized power in the provisional government by force, totally ignoring their pathetic minority in the total vote. What they valued was the agreement of only a part of the working class they need: a trust they used in its small numbers to gain complete power over Russia and install a proletarian dictatorship that was legitimately proletarian for many years.

"Leftism" can mean anything from social democracy or other social liberalisms to communism, and as such depending on the time of day someone like Bernie might win an election today. And again, the popularity of actual communistic leftism has always been small, and in spite of its small numbers the energy it represents has always been so incredibly powerful and impacting that it could do almost anything.

then what is a better way to describe it?
no, i agree that it should, or that it would be preferable, but that it won't/is not able to
only because the term has been corrupted and subverted by opposing forces and their propaganda efforts. "leftism" is supposed to mean radical emancipatory politics, which in this society means socialism/communism and anarchism. i don't know why you mention sanders, as he's an unprincipled establishment stooge like every other professional politician

Historical materialism, see:

Then you're essentially saying that you do not categorize the communist movement as only despotic first by necessity, but in whole character. That's foolish because it presupposed that the communist movement, expression of its ultimate desire, must thus not have the desire to go beyond its own immediate selfish interests, but that it is only by wholly overthrowing capitalism that such a lasting, meaningful individualism could be expressed at all. It's contradictory.

That's entirely false. The left-right axis does not divide proponents of two different modes of production. In fact this can empirically be proven using the origins of the dichotomy in the French revolution, where the left was in favor of a democratic Republic and the right for monarchy (more or less absolute), while already standing within the mercantilist mode of production (and fully developed, with French colonies and dispatched vassals).

Similarly today, left means "on the side of progression" and right "on the side of tradition". Only the furthest of the left is actually, legitimately anti-capitalistic and goes beyond more or less advanced progressivism. This means that social democrats are center left, for example, and that ordoliberals are center right.

And this all begs the question: why do you care so much about what the term "left" means? Are you first a "leftist" or are you first an anarchist, communist, etc.?

Nice haunted house, nerd.

...

Fuck off. You sound like Holla Forumsyp.

no it doesn't. it means i think communism is the solution, but the plebs don't want it and won't let it be achieved, because they're too stupid. communism doesn't have to be despotic if the average person would wake up and stop resisting it, but i don't believe they will. in fact i think they will fight and die to protect capitalism
it should. otherwise there is no difference between left and right if both support the same socioeconomic system. and there is obviously a much greater disparity between republicans and monarchists than there is between two groups of near-identical liberal democrats competing over the same system, a la the republican and democratic parties
socialdemocrats support capitalism, so they should not be grouped with socialists or communists. i don't agree with the concept of a "center-left." to me it's inherently faulty and possibly intended to harm radical movements by associating them with the right's mainstream competitors; for example, hillary clinton is considered a leftist, and she is unpopular, thus both she and the left can then be painted with the same brush. should we really accept hillary clinton as part of the left and a contemporary of communists? liberals are also considered left, when the foundation of liberalism is private property, which is the antithesis of communism. so there is obviously a problem with grouping these antithetical tendencies under the same banner. the term "left" either needs to be reiterated or abandoned
i care about the meaning of words because they're how we communicate. if those meanings get obfuscated, that becomes yet another method of impeding our efforts to improve society. and really you're the one who started arguing definitions, in
i am a leftist because i believe socialism/communism and anarchism all have valid positions and principles and that they should comprise "the left" as a united anticapitalistic force

...

What the fuck are you even doing on this board????

My enemas are pretty simple. I am a FFer so I want and need a deep, total cleanout. I want my ass clean for 12 hours if need be.
use a fleet enema bottle. Just my preference. I use the larger size, there is a very small fleet enema that can be used but it requires several more bottles shot up my ass. The larger size 5oz is quicker. I shoot 4 of those up my ass. I then get down on all 4's. I then drop down on my shoulders while keeping my ass high in the air and let that water run deep in my colon. Trust me, this will take practice as you will have the major urge to release it.
For the sake of keeping your bathroom floor clean, STAY NEAR YOUR TOILET! You will have a major urge to release but it will subside if you can hold it. I then stand up and shoot 4 more(another 20oz) of water up me and yes it gets really hard to hold it in but I once again get down on my shoulders, ass up and let that water run deep in my colon.
By that point I am SO FUCKING ready to release. It feels so good to plop down on the toilet and let that eruption go from my ass. I feel like it cleanses my soul!
I gently push all the water out. BUT IN NO WAY AM I FULLY CLEANED OUT YET. The worst has yet to come out and needs to be lured out. That nasty shitty water that if not cleaned out will likely come out while later getting fucked.
Inserting a dildo makes quick work of luring out all of that shitty nastiness. As deep as you can take the dildo will lure out the water faster. Any good bottom at that point should be inserting a dildo, just for hole prep for fucking. It is a good way to open up your hole anyway, to get it ready for a good hard cock pounding.
But it also serves the purpose of luring out that final shitty water. IMO I can't get that dirty water out unless I insert a dildo for a few minutes. While I insert the dildo, I hold it in and brush my teeth, shave etc and get ready for the shower. I leave the dildo in for at least 10 minutes while brushing teeth etc. I pull it out and out comes the remaining dirty water. One more quick fleet bottle to rinse and into the shower I go.
It takes me 10 minutes to enema and push it out. Another 10 minutes or so of dildoing to get the water out while prepping, shaving etc.
I can be fully enemad, showered and out the door in under an hour and be 100% confident of my hole being clean for up to 12 hours after the enema.