Where are the Individualists at?

Where are the Individualists at?

Mutualists, Individualists, Egoists, Agorists, Anarchists without Adjectives etc. come on in!

We're an ideology rarely discussed on here let's drop some knowledge and show some love.

fuck you people

Why do you hate us?

bump because libsoc is the future

c-can I join your club, desu?

forgot my flag

Bump!

There are no individualists besides us OP, dont bother with the corpse fetihizers of the old left here they call free love and free think to be sjw bullshit in their knee jerk reactions.

Anarchist here. I used to be a mutualist, because markets bring more freedom to the individual. But because the motivation to produce is still profit in a coop society, things like planned obsolescence would still exist. I advocate local, democratic planning in small communes (like 1000 people). I still think funding coops or mutual banks inside capitalism is a good thing tho.

What is the difference between Agorists and Mutualists? Aren't Agorists in favor of absentee property rights?

Oh yeah, I sure love me some orgies and drug abuse in """free love"""
Why don't you die of AIDS like Michel Foucault did? Whole free love thing is fetishits trying to normalize their behavior

Is that all the sexual frustration Holla Forums?

Yes. You should be frustrated all the time, it's only thing that drives you towards a potential revolution or towards a paragdim shift. If you're decadent and complacent, you won't achive anything. Don't give into petty things such as drugs or sodomy because you think you'll feel better doing it.
Also, nihilism is a spook and it's pure ideology.

This is a great ironic post user, had a nice giggle with those memes. You truelly belong on lefty/pol/.

My point was that nihilism and decadance amounts to nothing.
You might as well be a some petty criminal, it's literally not an ideology anyone should follow.
If everyone was a nihilisit, human race would sieze to exist.

Individualism sucks. You will be crushed by outside forces quit easily if you take care of yourself only. It's only good in current time you're in and it does nothing but protect the status quo.
Army of collectivists will win.
It's up to you to decide what kind of collective you want to be a part of.

believe it or not Foucault attracted AIDS on purpose, he wanted to die from a young age tried to kill himself more than one time and his room was full of torture drawings, so he went to LA in the height of the AIDS craze at that time

He decided to kill himself with AIDS because he fell for the free love meme.
Exploring your sexualitity is a mistake.

Wew sounds crazy this nihilism thing.
Meanwhile you want to have a potential revolution silly user. The memes are real.

How are you going to do a revolution with bunch of decadent nihilist?
You might as well start a nuclear war.

The trick is not to make us decadent but to make the whole population decadent, read the frankfurt school plep.

Individualists don't reject association or mutual aid, they just think people should be able to leave the association as soon as they want.

You need strong cohesive units in order achive succes in victory. Self sacrafice is important to win. If you're not willing to sacrafice yourself to the cause, there won't be one.
This is why radical left of today in first world countries is sadly just bunch of druggies who go around throwing bricks and protesting, thinking it will change something. It's also why anarchist Kekelonia lasted for such a short time.

cool story

t. Hitler

Tucker and Stirner were silly and ahistorical. Any "individualist" movement that contrasts itself to "collectivism" is not worth having. Very simple.

An individualist movement that would account for such things would only oppose authoritarianism.

Just a reminder, individualism is always cool as long as it can do this.


thoreau is pretty crap though =(


Also threw himself in front of a car for fun

Lifestylist revolution tbh

Yes, Hitler had a good idea on how to rise up in power and lead.
Too bad for us, he wasn't an actual socialist since he never had the intention to distribute the means of production to the workers. He banned unions, strikes, reprivatised banks, protected corporations and killed other socialist in his party as well.
This is why we need someone with fanaticism of Hitler or even Stalin, only to bring actual socialism.

yeah good luck with that fam, it will never happen
also revolution won't happen in first world most likely
t. 3rd wordlist pro

Wait, you're a NIHILIST? But…that means nothingness and decadence, you guys know that right?!?! ;_;

Ohhhhhh he gone done it. He gone done become into dogmatism.
RIP your sense of self.


holy shit, listen to yourself my dude. LISTEN TO YOURSELF.

Also you know what I meant. I'm refeering to hyper individualism. Some of the biggiest indivudalists and nihilisit are fucking bourgeoise as fuck.

It really is. Nihilism is not a political idoelogy, it will never create anything and it's a meme bourgeoise kids use to justify themselves as edgy.

Dogmatism is one of the biggest driving forces in the universe.
Nihlism is for people who are 2edgy4me.

What's the difference, logically, between hyper individualism and individualism

"Nihilism is not political"
But P.L.A.N (post-left anarcho-nihilism) is!

Thanks for admitting it , because the universe is into decay and heat death, a lot. So if dogmatism is the biggest driving force of the universe, then it's also the biggest cause of decay and death and loss and all other bad things neither of us like

The edge sharpens

also, I imagine if you are pro-collectivism, you are a marxist-leninist or nazbol, and either way consider yourself a Young Hegelian. If that's correct, then you'd also accept "the true is the good" and that wisdom and knowledge are good.

If you accept that, then you accept that you are spreading something Marx would have called objectively bad, because Hegel would have done the same- that is, misinformation and lies and bad things.

By your own standards, this makes you evil.

WEW LAD
post-left is like, truly a meme in itself since we never achived actual pure socialism or communism so I don't see why you need to theorize about post-left ideology

You completely misunderstood what I wanted to say. You need some form of domgatism and autotharianism to actually radically change things. Things won't happen the way you want if you don't actually have a dogma behind you.
Do you honestly believe majortiy of humans want to be nihilist who care about nothing?

edgyness is 3gd5me fam i can't handle all of it

Sometimes you need to do evil things to achive good.

Thats an oxymoron tho.

>everyone i dislike is
You are in dispair cause you have not set any real goals but only surrogate activity in your powerprocess and using technology systemized you in the oversocialisation process for civilisation.. - t. Kaczynski


He did a crappy job and the night of the long knifes was his bgiigest mistake for appealing to the conservative goverment preventing an capitalist coop instead of Useful Idiotist takeover of the state. A true plep who lost the war and shot his pathetic little brain.

t. Muke.


Justification doesnt mather tho.

So you don't know what post-left means evidently.
Whether the left has power doesn't change the fact that we *have* a left.

"you need some form of dogmatism to radically change things"
Oh contrare, dogmatism is the ideology of not changing anything. It fails at having a universal, and thus can't be Hegelian in any form. At least Hegelians like Stirner, though wrong entirely, understood this simple contradiction of Hegelian ideologies.


They were silly and ahistorical. Read Cioran. Life is the flower of fixed ideas, you free yourself from the fixed ideas only to fade. One finds their being in the fixed ideas.

Haha you are inrational.


Western existential philosophy is babby tier

I'm talking about some form of Communist dogmatism. Communist need at least SOME form of dogma to achive communism.
Now, I don't know if communist manifesto is considered a bit outdated but I would say it is.
So yeah there needs to be something above to keep things form breaking apart, imo.
Before secualirsm happened it was Church's dogmatism and belif in God. What will it be in your version of communism?

There allready exists one, its called Marxism.

both crap ngl. Buddhism is okay but it's just a stepping stone towards the acceptance of indifference, and shrugging off the apathy of everything. Don't get me wrong, fixed ideas are bad, but you gotta get that when you free yourself from them you gon' die. And it's a lot harder to free yourself than Stirner thought.


May I suggest Mein Kampf?

Pfft, only Feral Faun held onto those outdated ideas of communism

o shit that's right my dude you gots it

You CAN influence a domesticated population, in fact they're the easiest to influence.
Saying you need to do evil to do good is also not edgy.
Is killing a killer considered evil if you prevent that person from killing someone else? I mean objectivly it's evil to kill people but you sometimes have to do it for the good of someone.

Just marxism is not going to be enough. There needs to be suppression of individual rights for the good of everyone, imo.

You're wrong. Subjectivity wins again!

I hope you'll be the first tbh

No shit nigga, the pursuit towards nirvana by sunyata aint an easy one Lingual-san.

You just are at the tip of the iceberg nigga, bet you still even read Bob Black.


Nice memes.

Ok ridule me this. Would you love to live in my communist country/society: The free speech is limited (as in, you can't say anything bad against the people who govern it), you can't say anything against me (since I lead; but it doesn't have to be me), private property does not exist and everything is collectivized, there is death punishment against counter revolutionaries and dissidents who wish to destroy our society, there are no """human rights""" for them but get this:
We have reached post-scarcity. Goods are produced in great abundance with minimal or no human labor needed, so that they become available to all freely. You don't have to "work" and thus there is no wageslavery, you are precived as free as long as you're not against the individuals who guard your precived freedom. You can do whatever you want as long as it's doesn't hurt anyone (yourself included). Think of it as vanguard party doing it's job properly. You're there, happy as an individual to follow art, music, literature. Paint, read books, have fun. Money does not exist yet I provide everything for you as long as you comply and obey.
Would you still live in my autotharian system? If you answered no because you're afraid I would abuse my power, then I'm afraid we would never get to such a system and it would always self-destruct itself because too many dissidents decide to ruin it.

Worse, I haven't started with Bob Black. I got too much to read already, I like to read 5 books at a time because I get bored with one quickly. I'll be done with Faun in a couple weeks =(

But Cioran was still a qt~

Fuck individuals.
Fuck free thoguht.
Fuck human rights.
Collectivize EVERYTHING, even ourselves.

human rights are collective code of ethics bruh
read something plz

You ganne have a great time with the post-left fruit juice, the deeper you go the more realize that Doctor Evil was right all along. And that Yui is the most pure ironic person in existance with his ignorance that the post-left/post-anarchism actually are the only people who use Foucault in their understanding.
I always giggle as the ignorance of all philosophy fags, they cant into infinite consciousness. Wich dissolves by absolute nothingess

The Truth is that the Truth doesnt exist. =3


Kazincki was right all along about you people, Communists are ultra technophile liberals who want to systemize existance towards singularity by the myth of progresivism.

*at
Langauge is a spook tho, read Zerzan.

smh tbh fam

Is it ethical of me to establish communism and take away your private (and even personal, if needed) property?

I am commisar Cletus and everyone in this thread is state's property now. You are now collectivized.

holy shit, that's me
first step is full automation tho

BEST POSTPOSTMODERN LIT IN THE GAME


I was about to scream at you for referencing infinite consciousness, not knowing that it is taken into the individual and into the grave, leaving nothing but the individual. Glad you added that.

Hah, subjectivity wins again!


We live in a language, not a nation, silly billy.

Follow your leader! Die on the ground choking!

Why would it have to be the death penalty? Appropriating the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and into the public commons, with a mixture of the transitionary state and the people's cooperative control, would not require the death penalty or any 'punishment' to stop it. Other, warring, states controlled by the capitalists within their nations would however (sadly) require the people's army to still have its military arm at the ready. Reactionary militant, typically foreign supported and aided by the capitalists global allies, would also require a defensive force, sure - but that's a state of armed conflict. It's not valid to base civil society's rules on.

If you've reached abundance of goods, and a solid foundation that keeps itself running - without profits, exploitation nor abject slavery, then all the reasons (as long as you stop private industry from seizing lands at the exclusion of everyone else) for why people would be "dissidents" - is nonexistent. Capitalist propaganda would never take root, other than by sellouts within the party system… which brings me to the next point.

Sellouts. You've set up a dictatorial rule by the party, with zero democratic input and no fundamental rights for anyone else; how do you think the rot starts to set in, if all other material conditions are met to cover the needs of the people - the rot begins at the top. The only defense, is people's input at all times. And rights, yes, even under "communism". Fundamental rights to life, are not fucking borgy or "capitalist inventions". While horrors can and do take place in any time of war, to make a rule out of it to justify it instead of just living with the shit and feeling like shit about it, is pretty repulsive in my eyes.

Hit the bottle and become a cherished, but depressed, revolutionary leader - instead of manufacturing a whole mantra, a whole theory, about "really, rights are just borgy bullshit."

You've not described communism, you've described a benevolent, to some, dictatorship. It, like all dictarships, monarchies, etc. face the danger of a shit leader, seeing all this - being part of the "in crowd", and going "hey… fuck it, why not just do whatever I want and fuck everyone else". The first monarch might be a wise, war hardened asshole, the second is probably a shithead, and the third might be a total monster. Sure, you could foster some sort of absolutist "party secret service", within the party itself, that would have and hold even greater authority than its figureheads - but again, same issue. Unaccountable, powerful, dangerous and rolling the die everytime someone new enters into the crowd.

The only defense for the future generations of the initial revolutionary generation - is democracy and people's input at as many levels as remotely possible. And guaranteed human rights (including legal rights, a due process, your side being heard and represented). Everything else is a gamble, that historically does not turn out pretty.

Z E R Z A N

Is it ethical of me to establish capitalism and privatize away your communal (and even personal, if needed) property?

I am the leader of the free world Cletus and everyone in this thread will work for me and pay me back the money to access any property now. You are now privatized .

nigger read marx or hegel history writing plz

As in for your question the answer is complex no

I would rather live in benevolent dictatorship that is striving towards communism than this shitty democracy.

So a Boyfriend?

Satanic nihilism :^)

A true democratic process is rule by the people, input by the people… who exactly, are the ones seizing the means of production again, and why are they doing it? To take it back from private tyranny.

What is the political equivalent of this?… democracy.

Is the US (if that's what you're referencing as "le democracy") a democracy? No. It's not even a fully functioning representative 'democracy'. Anyway, you skipped all the reasoning in my post so I'll just assume you're a troll.

A state of communism goes hand in hand with democracy.

You can be my boyfriend only if we reach communism.

Ok I was joking a bit. But I must admit I don't like this democracy fetishization. What if somehow majortiy of the people reject ideas of communism? What then? Do we wait until everyone is a communist? I don't understand this part. Do you think communism can ONLY be implemented democratically?

...

It seems like we're not following the same analysis of the world at all, here. Your question would imply that the conditions under capitalism which gives rise to the superstructure of capitalism, with the very same ideas and reactionary forces you see in today's world, and the mimicing of the ideology and 'rules and values' of the elite - of a capitalist controlled state - would somehow be the divisions still existing in the exact same manner, under a state of communism, or the socialist transitionary stage towards such a societal state.

What other thing could you mean by people 'rejecting communism'? The production route and system is within the realms of the people, under their control, the state is working for the people towards further people's control and benefit, the economy is being shaped to apply technology and goods towards the betterment of everyone - and the benefit of the peoples, not the capitalist elite few.

In part today what feeds the capitalist state propaganda and fuels the illusionary lines between laborers and the common classes, is the lack of their fundamental needs - the inequality. The propaganda feeds on obfuscating the economic and material conditions they suffer, under, and the real causes of them. (while typically trying to get everyone to blame themselves for their lives not being amongst the elite few)

So… what do you mean (other than, what I suspect, you not having a materialist analysis)? Those that would "reject it", would be former lords and ladies, of the former capitalist system. They'd see their fortunes and control dwindle. Percentage wise of the populace, they'd be tiny (and their personal space would remain untouched, it'd merely be their empires - their control, of the economy, which would vanish, but even that would of course lead to a reaction within them)

I'm not fetishizing democracy, I'm making an argument that the process of democracy is a defense against the dissolution of the revolutionary agenda and the traps that the future holds for the generations that come after.

That 'benevolent' dictator, is going to die, you know. Time passes.

...

Not on my watch.

Also, why just have one dictator? Pic related

Pie in the sky nonsense like every other communist. You'll grow out it in twenty years.

That's what a constitution is for.

Bump, plz answer this gomrades :

He's not saying that at all, you retard, he's saying that people wouldn't just decide to abandon a stateless, classless, moneyless society if it ever is achieved because it wouldn't be in their material interests to do so. That would be like you deciding that clothes or food or housing aren't working out and you'd rather just rather starve in the cold. Once you have something, why would you give it away?

Wew lad… that man had such an incredible knowledge, he is far superior to the Communist bureaucrat of Marx.

Also hang yourself weeb.

Nowhere; for the individual is an oppressive fiction and there are ultimately only subjects in a constant search for a new Master.

What's with all this anti drug shit in the left?

What's with using that jpeg from the VICE video when the guy in it is an incredibly actually reactionary guy who's gone as far as to say homosexuality is a disease because there's more than 3% homosexuals in the world (anything above 3% is 'abnormal') and that drugs are bourgeois.

Because someone made this image and it says "slime" and I thought that would be useful.

OK. It doesn't really assist your stance well when you know the context though lmao.

It doesn't really harm it either.

Are you stupid?

'Wrong' is an improper adjective for something (the individual) that does not ontologically exist in neither the Real or the Symbolic.

And thats a refuting how? The Ego, the only "individual" compared to the possessed is self disolving.