Are Capitalists the greatest egoists?
Is there anything more egoistic than owning thousands of wage slaves and pocketing an unfair portion of the labor value so you can live literally as comfortably as you Desire? All men not blinded by spooks like "the class struggle" should strive to be a successful capitalist.
Read zizek.
Which book?
see quote related. also, listen to zizek instead for this quote and where he elaborates on it: abc.net.au
No, they are slaves to the logic of capital.
also, read lacan (mega.nz
Why should the self let others tell him what TRULY makes him happy instead of finding his own, isn't that the same as Porky's ploy when he convinces workers that they are happier working for him?
Also, Are there statistics that show wealthy people really are less healthy and happy?
there is no "should" under a mode of production like capitalism. as long as it is upheld, we are logically bound to the logic of capital accumulation and the specific role we play on either side of the productive process.
porky doesn't really have a choice; his material interests lie rooted in the exploitation of labor to meet the ever-lasting compound growth he must maintain through this exploitation. of course porky can get more or less creative when doing this, but he will ultimately be forced to be more and more creative in doing so as the contradictions and crises of capitalism force the working class to smell the roses.
"healthy" and "happy" are innately very subjective categories and subject to the use of surveys and other methodologically flawed and interpretative to obtain an answer from people. generally speaking, it is said (even in bourgeois institutions) that more wealth does not mean more happiness: businessinsider.com
>subject to the use of surveys that are* methodologically flawed and interpretative
Til I found left/pol/, I assumed that the left was the kinda good guy and that capitalists were indeed slef serving egoist fucks. I don't know why the left tries to appropriate such shitty traits.
Well, yes capitalists are egoists. Therefore capitalism is in their interest.
And thus the abolition of capitalism is in the egoist interest of the worker.
It's not as if Stirner didn't think or write about this. The reason we want socialism is not because it's "good".
It's because it's in our interest to do so.
Nope, most successful capitalists work their asses off and spend their "not working" time at boring social events to get more business and climb the social ladder.
another way to put it is that the cage becomes more gilded the higher you climb
but only the 1% and above get the key
As liberalism is completed in self-criticizing, “critical”[38] liberalism — in which the critic remains a liberal and does not go beyond the principle of liberalism, Man — this may distinctively be named after Man and called the “humane.”
The laborer is counted as the most material and egoistical man. He does nothing at all for humanity, does everything for himself, for his welfare.
The commonalty, because it proclaimed the freedom of Man only as to his birth, had to leave him in the claws of the un-human man (the egoist) for the rest of life. Hence under the regime of political liberalism egoism has an immense field for free utilization.
The laborer will utilize society for his egoistic ends as the commoner does the State. You have only an egoistic end after all, your welfare, is the humane liberal’s reproach to the Socialist; take up a purely human interest, then I will be your companion. “But to this there belongs a consciousness stronger, more comprehensive, than a laborer-consciousness”. “The laborer makes nothing, therefore he has nothing; but he makes nothing because his labor is always a labor that remains individual, calculated strictly for his own want, a labor day by day.”[39] In opposition to this one might, e.g., consider the fact that Gutenberg’s labor did not remain individual, but begot innumerable children, and still lives today; it was calculated for the want of humanity, and was an eternal, imperishable labor.
The humane consciousness despises the commoner-consciousness as well as the laborer-consciousness: for the commoner is “indignant” only at vagabonds (at all who have “no definite occupation”) and their “immorality”; the laborer is “disgusted” by the idler (“lazy-bones”) and his “immoral,” because parasitic and unsocial, principles. To this the humane liberal retorts: The unsettledness of many is only your product, Philistine! But that you, proletarian, demand the grind of all, and want to make drudgery general, is a part, still clinging to you, of your pack-mule life up to this time. Certainly you want to lighten drudgery itself by all having to drudge equally hard, yet only for this reason, that all may gain leisure to an equal extent. But what are they to do with their leisure? What does your “society” do, that this leisure may be passed humanly? It must leave the gained leisure to egoistic preference again, and the very gain that your society furthers falls to the egoist, as the gain of the commonalty, the masterlessness of man, could not be filled with a human element by the State, and therefore was left to arbitrary choice.
It is assuredly necessary that man be masterless: but therefore the egoist is not to become master over man again either, but man over the egoist. Man must assuredly find leisure: but, if the egoist makes use of it, it will be lost for man; therefore you ought to have given leisure a human significance. But you laborers undertake even your labor from an egoistic impulse, because you want to eat, drink, live; how should you be less egoists in leisure? You labor only because having your time to yourselves (idling) goes well after work done, and what you are to while away your leisure time with is left to chance.
But, if every door is to be bolted against egoism, it would be necessary to strive after completely “disinterested” action, total disinterestedness. This alone is human, because only Man is disinterested, the egoist always interested.
Commoner-consciousness = Class consciousness of the bourgeoisie.
Laborer-consciousness = Class consciousness of the proletariat.
...
kek
Not only is this quote reactionary, it's actually quite false, as Chris Hedges, someone who's spent much of his life around these people, can attest to.
You missed the point of Stirner.
>plato.stanford.edu
Not saying you are wrong (the piece you quoted sounded very reasonable), but the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is more a collection of opinion pieces than an objective encyclopedia. Just for you information.
(Vid not related)
His ideas are so general and come with so many qualifications i'm pretty sure they don't say anything at all.
What the fuck is that video
Here is the "masterpiece" in its full glory:
youtube.com
(polite sage for off topic)
No. There is no such thing as "an unfair portion of the labour value". Being a "wage slave" is a voluntary agreement between you and your employer. If you don't want to work for someone else, you can go start your own business. The people who start business put in massive effort and time, usually doing nothing but working in their free time during the first couple years to get the business on its feet. There is also a big chance of the business failing, which can mean economic ruin for the owner. An employee who works for said business benefits massively from the business being there, without having had to put his own money on the line or doing all that work, so naturally he won't be compensated to the same extent, but there is nothing wrong with that.