How is Stirner not rightist to all hell...

How is Stirner not rightist to all hell? I don't see anything in his writing that would support anything other than anarcho capitalism. Even when he calls private property a spook it can still be defended through violence

Have you read his books?

tippin

How does red flag poster consistently make the worst threads on this board?

…and how exactly would that be compatible with anarcho-capitalism? You know, the ideology that goes on and on about how initiated violence is always illegitimate and 'muh NAP!!!!'? Stirner just lays bare that the owning of property is justified based on the threat of violence. In private property with capitalism, it's violence against the proletariat. In collective property under socialism, it's violence against the bourgeoisie.

because socialism is cancer

Only might decides about property, and, as the State (no matter whether State or well-to-do citizens or of ragamuffins or of men in the absolute) is the sole mighty one, it alone is proprietor; I, the unique,[Einzige] have nothing, and am only enfeoffed, am vassal and as such, servitor. Under the dominion of the State there is no property of mine.

I want to raise the value of myself, the value of ownness, and should I cheapen property? No, as I was not respected hitherto because people, mankind, and a thousand other generalities were put higher, so property too has to this day not yet been recognized in its full value. Property too was only the property of a ghost, e.g. the people’s property; my whole existence “belonged to the fatherland”; I belonged to the fatherland, the people, the State, and therefore also everything that I called my own. It is demanded of States that they make away with pauperism. It seems to me this is asking that the State should cut off its own head and lay it at its feet; for so long as the State is the ego the individual ego must remain a poor devil, a non-ego. The State has an interest only in being itself rich; whether Michael is rich and Peter poor is alike to it; Peter might also be rich and Michael poor. It looks on indifferently as one grows poor and the other rich, unruffled by this alternation. As individuals they are really equal before its face; in this it is just: before it both of them are — nothing, as we “are altogether sinners before God”; on the other hand, it has a very great interest in this, that those individuals who make it their ego should have a part in its wealth; it makes them partakers in its property. Through property, with which it rewards the individuals, it tames them; but this remains its property, and every one has the usufruct of it only so long as he bears in himself the ego of the State, or is a “loyal member of society”; in the opposite case the property is confiscated, or made to melt away by vexatious lawsuits. The property, then, is and remains State property, not property of the ego. That the State does not arbitrarily deprive the individual of what he has from the State means simply that the State does not rob itself. He who is State-ego, i.e. a good citizen or subject, holds his fief undisturbed as such an ego, not as being an ego of his own. According to the code, property is what I call mine “by virtue of God and law.” But it is mine by virtue of God and law only so long as — the State has nothing against it.


The NAP, or Private property is an Fixed idea that demands my particpation to maintain its existance. Only by its permission am i allowed to go into competition with my fellow individualists. This mindset is spooked as nothing is above me and i dont need any permission to take property by might and not by the permission of natural right

The commonalty has its power, and at the same time its limits, in the fundamental law of the State, in a charter, in a legitimate [or “righteous.” German rechtlich] or “just” [gerecht] prince who himself is guided, and rules, according to “rational laws,” in short, in legality. The period of the bourgeoisie is ruled by the British spirit of legality. An assembly of provincial estates, e.g. is ever recalling that its authorization goes only so and so far, and that it is called at all only through favor and can be thrown out again through disfavor. It is always reminding itself of its — vocation. It is certainly not to be denied that my father begot me; but, now that I am once begotten, surely his purposes in begetting do not concern me a bit and, whatever he may have called me to, I do what I myself will. Therefore even a called assembly of estates, the French assembly in the beginning of the Revolution, recognized quite rightly that it was independent of the caller. It existed, and would have been stupid if it did not avail itself of the right of existence, but fancied itself dependent as on a father. The called one no longer has to ask “what did the caller want when he created me?” but “what do I want after I have once followed the call?” Not the caller, not the constituents, not the charter according to which their meeting was called out, nothing will be to him a sacred, inviolable power. He is authorized for everything that is in his power; he will know no restrictive “authorization,” will not want to be loyal. This, if any such thing could be expected from chambers at all, would give a completely egoistic chamber, severed from all navel-string and without consideration. But chambers are always devout, and therefore one cannot be surprised if so much half-way or undecided, i. e., hypocritical, “egoism” parades in them.

The members of the estates are to remain within the limits that are traced for them by the charter, by the king’s will, etc. If they will not or can not do that, then they are to “step out.” What dutiful man could act otherwise, could put himself, his conviction, and his will as the first thing? Who could be so immoral as to want to assert himself, even if the body corporate and everything should go to ruin over it? People keep carefully within the limits of their authorization; of course one must remain within the limits of his power anyhow, because no one can do more than he can. “My power, or, if it be so, powerlessness, be my sole limit, but authorizations only restraining — precepts? Should I profess this all-subversive view? No, I am a — law-abiding citizen!”

The commonalty professes a morality which is most closely connected with its essence. The first demand of this morality is to the effect that one should carry on a solid business, an honourable trade, lead a moral life. Immoral, to it, is the sharper, the, demirep, the thief, robber, and murderer, the gamester, the penniless man without a situation, the frivolous man. The doughty commoner designates the feeling against these “immoral” people as his “deepest indignation.”

All these lack settlement, the solid quality of business, a solid, seemly life, a fixed income, etc.; in short, they belong, because their existence does not rest on a secure basis to the dangerous “individuals or isolated persons,” to the dangerous proletariat; they are “individual bawlers” who offer no “guarantee” and have “nothing to lose,” and so nothing to risk. The forming of family ties, e.g., binds a man: he who is bound furnishes security, can be taken hold of; not so the street-walker. The gamester stakes everything on the game, ruins himself and others — no guarantee. All who appear to the commoner suspicious, hostile, and dangerous might be comprised under the name “vagabonds”; every vagabondish way of living displeases him. For there are intellectual vagabonds too, to whom the hereditary dwelling-place of their fathers seems too cramped and oppressive for them to be willing to satisfy themselves with the limited space any more: instead of keeping within the limits of a temperate style of thinking, and taking as inviolable truth what furnishes comfort and tranquillity to thousands, they overlap all bounds of the traditional and run wild with their impudent criticism and untamed mania for doubt, these extravagating vagabonds. They form the class of the unstable, restless, changeable, i.e. of the prolétariat, and, if they give voice to their unsettled nature, are called “unruly fellows.”

Such a broad sense has the so-called proletariat, or pauperism. How much one would err if one believed the commonalty to be desirous of doing away with poverty (pauperism) to the best of its ability! On the contrary, the good citizen helps himself with the incomparably comforting conviction that “the fact is that the good things of fortune are unequally divided and will always remain so — according to God’s wise decree.” The poverty which surrounds him in every alley does not disturb the true commoner further than that at most he clears his account with it by throwing an alms, or finds work and food for an “honest and serviceable” fellow. But so much the more does he feel his quiet enjoyment clouded by innovating and discontented poverty, by those poor who no longer behave quietly and endure, but begin to run wild and become restless. Lock up the vagabond, thrust the breeder of unrest into the darkest dungeon! He wants to “arouse dissatisfaction and incite people against existing institutions” in the State — stone him, stone him!

...

This is now Thighs Thread

Have you not seen the leftcoms?

...

Egoism, Stirnerism, post-leftism, etc. are all squatopia-tier ideologies that fit the category of "politics without politics". It's not even that they might be pro-capitalism (and they aren't, notably Stirner explicitly states his abhorrence for capitalism); it's more that they're devoid of any kind of praxis. Enjoy their meme-tier status on the internet because that's all they're really worth. And frankly, Stirnerposting is a cheap way to get Holla Forumsyps butthurt so it's not completely unfunny.

...

Shouldnt you be in the streets causing an revolution or something?

If this is from a published translation, it's fucking awful.

What I don't get about Stirner is, what happens if some pro-capitalists form a "union of egoists" and try to force their will onto others? Hypothetically, if that group is stronger and able to dominate, there's not much that their opponents could do about it, right? Wouldn't that just create the same conditions we live in today? i.e. those with the most guns/greatest capacity for violence are society's rulers.

It really just seems like all against all. Not that I especially dislike that scenario; it just doesn't seem all that novel or complex a concept, to me.

Nice meme dude haha.


I would prefer not to. Besides, I wouldn't want to take your passion away from you by doing what you love best now would I, comrade?

kek

this really is the downside about Stirner memes

I don't get why someone wouldn't even try to read him before sperging out hot takes about his ideas online, it's like 1,5 short-ish books that aren't cumbersome to read

Thats a State, only thing that mathers is you and your property. It doesnt mather if your opponent is an egoist or someone possessed.

So a Corporation with private security, is a State?

Hmm…

Makes sense.


Still trying to Steal Stirner, Holla Forums aren't you?

Pitty your Ideology is a spook.
Race is a Spook.
Tradition is a Spook.

How can Stirner be connected with Holla Forums in anyway?

A state is the centralisation of force/violence that essentially has the monopoly over a region. If there is another form of force in the region you have a war eather civil (Idealogy vs idealogy) or national. (Nation state vs Nation State)

I have another question. Wouldn't Stirners Union of Egoists be a Fascist organization irl?

DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN KNOW WHAT FASCISM IS ABOUT????

"Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties."

HOW THE FUCK HAS THIS ANYTHING TO DO WITH EGOISM???

Fascism requires that you give up your egoism, in favor OF the state.

Not that you do everything in self interest.

AKA I help you live better, cause it's my self interest, long term and so on, that you live better.

No cause an Union is based on mutual self interest (Only thing holding it thoghetter is that the organisation is being used to get to a agreed goal) instead of submission to an idea like nation.

Egoists utilize eachother to get something they want that will benefit them. They wont unite thoghetter to utilize existance towards the idea of nation or god.

''Let us not seek the most comprehensive commune, “human society,” but let us seek in others only means and organs which we may use as our property! As we do not see our equals in the tree, the beast, so the presupposition that others are our equals springs from a hypocrisy. No one is my equal, but I regard him, equally with all other beings, as my property. In opposition to this I am told that I should be a man among “fellow-men” (Judenfrage, p. 60); I should “respect” the fellow-man in them. For me no one is a person to be respected, not even the fellow-man, but solely, like other beings, an object in which I take an interest or else do not, an interesting or uninteresting object, a usable or unusable person.

And, if I can use him, I doubtless come to an understanding and make myself at one with him, in order, by the agreement, to strengthen my power, and by combined force to accomplish more than individual force could effect. In this combination I see nothing whatever but a multiplication of my force, and I retain it only so long as it is my multiplied force. But thus it is a — union.

Neither a natural ligature nor a spiritual one holds the union together, and it is not a natural, not a spiritual league. It is not brought about by one blood, not by one faith (spirit). In a natural league — like a family, a tribe, a nation, yes, mankind — the individuals have only the value of specimens of the same species or genus; in a spiritual league — like a commune, a church — the individual signifies only a member of the same spirit; what you are in both cases as a unique person must be — suppressed. Only in the union can you assert yourself as unique, because the union does not possess you, but you possess it or make it of use to you.''

The State exerts itself to tame the desirous man; in other words, it seeks to direct his desire to it alone, and to content that desire with what it offers. To sate the desire for the desirous man’s sake does not come into the mind: on the contrary, it stigmatizes as an “egoistic man” the man who breathes out unbridled desire, and the “egoistic man” is its enemy. He is this for it because the capacity to agree with him is wanting to the State; the egoist is precisely what it cannot “comprehend.” Since the State (as nothing else is possible) has to do only for itself, it does not take care for my needs, but takes care only of how it make away with me, i.e. make out of me another ego, a good citizen. It takes measures for the “improvement of morals.” — And with what does it win individuals for itself? With itself, i.e. with what is the State’s, with State property. It will be unremittingly active in making all participants in its “goods,” providing all with the “good things of culture”; it presents them its education, opens to them the access to its institutions of culture, capacitates them to come to property (i.e. to a fief) in the way of industry, etc. For all these fiefs it demands only the just rent of continual thanks. But the “unthankful” forget to pay these thanks. — Now, neither can “society” do essentially otherwise than the State.

You bring into a union your whole power, your competence, and make yourself count; in a society you are employed, with your working power; in the former you live egoistically, in the latter humanly, i.e. religiously, as a “member in the body of this Lord”; to a society you owe what you have, and are in duty bound to it, are — possessed by “social duties”; a union you utilize, and give it up undutifully and unfaithfully when you see no way to use it further. If a society is more than you, then it is more to you than yourself; a union is only your instrument, or the sword with which you sharpen and increase your natural force; the union exists for you and through you, the society conversely lays claim to you for itself and exists even without you, in short, the society is sacred, the union your own; consumes you, you consume the union.

Nevertheless people will not be backward with the objection that the agreement which has been concluded may again become burdensome to us and limit our freedom; they will say, we too would at last come to this, that “every one must sacrifice a part of his freedom for the sake of the generality.” But the sacrifice would not be made for the “generality’s” sake a bit, as little as I concluded the agreement for the “generality’s” or even for any other man’s sake; rather I came into it only for the sake of my own benefit, from selfishness.[Literally, “own-benefit”] But, as regards the sacrificing, surely I “sacrifice” only that which does not stand in my power, i. e., I “sacrifice” nothing at all.

Yeah.

Everything. It's pretty self-explanatory. The State is your Ego's creation and expression of creative interests. It's big and all-inclusive. And you want it!


Well, don't do it. Choose death instead.


Fascism?


As is fascism.

Egoists utilize eachother to get something they want that will benefit them. They wont unite thoghetter to utilize existance towards the idea of nation or god.

You confuse fascism with nationalism. Fascism only mentions the nation as a thing to be destroyed and perhaps restored, not served. You could very well remove it and replace it with whatever other collective goal. Call it the communist utopia if it makes you feel better. It's basically the application of your collective Will, not something that you HAVE to do. It's pretty much the liberty of working with other people. Really working, mind and spirit, and really enjoying your creation, not getting subsidies. Fascism solves Stirner's problem with the Division between the Ego and the Other (the big bad state). Libertarians have the same problem concerning the economy. Communists just choose to ignore the problem as 'metaphysics'.

Define Fascism

No it isnt, explain yourself.

Only if people choose to submit to your might and commit to increase its might by own might. They instead of serving their own interest follow your interest, they are spooked.

Also what the fuck did you get this from? There is no other or problem.

The State exerts itself to tame the desirous man; in other words, it seeks to direct his desire to it alone, and to content that desire with what it offers. To sate the desire for the desirous man’s sake does not come into the mind: on the contrary, it stigmatizes as an “egoistic man” the man who breathes out unbridled desire, and the “egoistic man” is its enemy. He is this for it because the capacity to agree with him is wanting to the State; the egoist is precisely what it cannot “comprehend.” Since the State (as nothing else is possible) has to do only for itself, it does not take care for my needs, but takes care only of how it make away with me, i.e. make out of me another ego, a good citizen. It takes measures for the “improvement of morals.” — And with what does it win individuals for itself? With itself, i.e. with what is the State’s, with State property. It will be unremittingly active in making all participants in its “goods,” providing all with the “good things of culture”; it presents them its education, opens to them the access to its institutions of culture, capacitates them to come to property (i.e. to a fief) in the way of industry, etc. For all these fiefs it demands only the just rent of continual thanks. But the “unthankful” forget to pay these thanks. — Now, neither can “society” do essentially otherwise than the State.

The Egoist as state is only an Egoist for the sake of itself, just as Christianity is the Egoism of God.