/lit/ - Literature

>>24017184
>I make sure to not know things that re**it ever talked about
You spend way to much time worrying about website's coolness factor. You're a hipster, though right about the others.

Stirner was a nice guy who wrote a book that shrewdly brought into the light the facts about power. You take what you can.

>>24017185
It absolutely is. There were many other schools of thought contemporaneous with Aristippus, but those writings have been lost, as everyone seemed to agreed that best Epicureanism was best.

>>24017165
>>24017121

>>21727238
>>21727278
You haven't read it.

>>21664428
Unite, organize, take.

>>21505237
Being of Eastern and Western European I would say Im white, but the racist would make some further excuse. Idiocy.

> The class distinctions, at their core, represent natures and modes of thought and perception.
There’s nothing natural here in representation.
>Some of these modes can be taught, others cannot.
Any way of thinking can be taught. When and to which individual matters, but nothing else forbids it.
>There will always be cracks.
Such as the crack in your head, which resembles a second ass
>On the flip side, the inborn nature is also what makes the blood argument fail. The perpetrator of an aristocratic lineage may pass many traits onto the progeny,
Maintaining a class structure for its own sake seems to have been taught to you from an early age. You could unlearn this wrong-think. If you had a child, you’d pass it to them, or he could be raised in a more wholesome environment and know what real differences are made of
>but without that core nature shared by all gentry, the individual heir will fail to live up to the house
Fuck “the house”. These houses never benefited anyone but a handful of its occupants at any time
> The great ruin of many such houses were a lack of true gentlemen being born into it.
In other words “if only this shit worked, then we’d be be so well off!” But since it doesn’t, we’ve partially abandoned it.
Time for another guillotine. There we’ll find the masses are the true aristocrats

>>21332960
He pointed out contradictions in it, while pointing the way to a stronger individualist. Though lightly hinting that they’re nothing, or lesser, when operating by themselves. His ideas aren’t a rejection of the communist dream but of slavish conformist state-socialism. He died a socialist. (Of the libertarian/anarchist type)
He’s something of an Epicurean, true, though a more risk taking political actor

>>20496065
That is part of the anarchist ideology. He came to these conclusions in aid of the beleaguered working class. Emma Goldman synthesizes his individualism with the wholly necessary collectivist end of the ideology perfectly well.
Maybe reconsider what you think anarchism is. It’s plain and simple, anon. Anarchism is “based”

For the tards using their rudimentary thoughts on Stirner to make their stupid points.

>>20032668
But anon. I’ve read him and you haven’t.
> who believes he has a right to interfere in the lives others.
Who’s life did Stirner interfere with?
>yur retawdid

Here, read.
Stirner was innovating the still nascent socialist movement, which was largely still steeped in Christian moralism. This quote is now very much a socialist call to action. Stop being so stupid. Read up on it already.

>>19665697
You should collect the quotes

>>19514907
Boiled down. The state and its profiteering racket is lost when we abandon their models.

Marx wants a slow process to play out just so. And so numerous betrayers believe themselves our betters by delaying the Revolution

>>19477353
Socialist books most critical of states and capitalism are what you need.
“We” can’t stop because of greed and bullying assholes

>>19390841
Guess. Then click spoiler.

>>19340719
The basics: parent over child, teacher over student, expert over novice.
A specific example: a film director might be picked by group who want to see a script made, but the director needs to be left in charge of the production.
Another. In a combat situation there needs to be some ground rules set up to avoid insubordination, but their battalion leaders need to understand the natural human instinct for fight or flight.
Native Americans. Didn’t they call them braves, not warriors? Sort of straying from topic I guess.

>>19340732
Pic for you. Stirner is basic level personal sovereignty. How to live beyond that is only lightly touched upon in the book with the phrase “union of egoists”. That is HOW we can achieve the commune. This is WHY we appreciate him.

<- This is Stirner advocating communism as he sees it. The Marxist tanky approach will never bring up humans ready for it.

>>19251901
Stockholm syndrome. And a lack of imagination.
Warfare is demanded by greed. Greed is enabled by the same blind obedience you so will hand over because you think there’s no way you can’t.

>>18954341
He was an idiot. Stop caring what he thought of anarchists.
What Stirner thought obvious has more weight with us.

Stirner is the spirit of individualists. There is no room for individualism in fascism save for the one head of state. With the whole region embracing Stirnerist “egoism”, the state doesn’t stand a chance.
THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO INTERPRET HIM

>>18943020
You keep saying “you” and I keep correcting it. I am not their Durrutti, likely never will be. It’s also quite absurd of you to say 99% of the population can’t set the mind to preventing a measly attempted coup. You imagine complete disorganization and I keep telling you it gets organized. It does this or a measly coup succeeds again.
Stopping coups doesn’t take authoritarianism, it takes willpower.

>>18943020
You keep saying “you” and I keep correcting it. I am their Durrutti, likely never will be. It’s also quite absurd of you to say 99% of the population can’t set the mind to preventing a measly attempted coup. You imagine complete disorganization and I keep telling you it gets organized. It does this or a measly coup succeeds again.
Stopping coups doesn’t take authoritarianism, it takes willpower.

>>18082872
>Anarcho-Communists don't read Stirner
Emma Goldman did. I did.

>>18082926
Have you read a Saul Newman book on him? If so, which is better, heh

>>17998370
Duh.

>>17724890
Cultist.

>>17724957
Haven’t read it yet. Apparently a big influence. (Of course I’m still partial to James Herod’s anarchiso-communism)

>>17664807
I don’t think he ever said steal. That’s just a social perception. He says take, so everyone imagines he advocates deranged criminal behavior. He’s just honest about the state and its ability to steal and call it legal. They’ve got you fooled.

>>17263283
>do what you want if you feel it is right without peer pressure"
Yeah. That’s what the socialists wanted.

>>17263350
No, you.