/lit/ - Literature

Anyone who can make Marx seethe is objectively correct.

>>17851223
Stirner
>Says communism would the most horrific thing imaginable because of the untapped power it gives to the state
>100 years of communist revolution shows that to be the case
>Stirner said this before Marx even wrote the manifesto
Its just so interesting Stirner predicted everything he said would happen happened. He even argued that socialists were basically going do everything the French revolutionaries did to impose their beliefs, and we've seen the disastrous effects that had on millions of people.

>>17851796
I've read neither but that sounds amazing if true.
Only a bit of Marx.

>>17852192
>lt attempts to provide rational laws of property leaked out of the bosom of love into a desolate sea of regulations. One can’t even exclude socialism and communism from this. Everyone is supposed to be supplied with sufficient means, for which it matters little whether one still finds them socialistically in a personal property or communistically ladles them from the community of goods. The individual’s sense remains the same in this: it remains a sense of dependence.The distributive board of equity lets me get only what the sense of equity, its loving care for all,dictates. For me, the individual, there lies no less of an offense in collective wealth than in that of f individual others; neither the former nor the latter is mine; whether the wealth belongs to the collectivity which allows part of it to flow to me, or to individual possessors, is for me the same constraint, as I can decide nothing about either. On the contrary, communism pushes me back even more, through the abolition of all personal property, into dependence on another, namely the generality or collectivity; and as loudly as it always attacks the “state,” what it intends is itself a state, a status, a state of affairs that restrains my free movement, a supreme lordship over me. Communism rightly rebels against the pressure that I experience from individual property owners; but still more horrifying is the power that it puts in the hands of the collectivity.Egoism takes a different route for eradicating the propertyless rabble. It doesn’t say: Wait and see what the board of equity will—give you in the name of the collectivity (because such a gift has always taken place in “states,” each receiving “according to desert,” and so according to the measure to which each was able to deserve it, to earn it by service), but rather: Seize and take what you need! Thus, the war of all against all is declared.I alone decide what I will have.
- Max Stirner, the Unique and Its Property

>>17852238
can we get citations for these quotes? /lit/ should have SOME standards, maybe, a little. fucking please?

can we stop with the shitty stirner threads

>>17852259
>You long for freedom? You fools!If you took power, then freedom would come of itself. See, one who has power stands above the law!

>>17852259
>- Max Stirner, the Unique and Its Property
Is that not a citation????

>>17851223
Literally no one knows who Max Stirner is but everyone knows who Marx is

>>17852259
gayest post I have seen in ages, kill yourself

>>17852315
Max being obscure, and hated by normies like Marx make him even more attractive.

>>17852315
If it’s popular then it must be good.

>>17852315

Based and Ben Shapiro pilled

>>17851796
the modern CIA nigger liberal dystopia is a million times more horrific than anything that happened under communism

>>17851223
Hegel

>>17852363
How can we quantify horror in the sense of one nation's history or status quo being more 'horrific' than another's? That being said, would you really take living in Chairman Xi's Communist Utopia over a semi-comfortable trans fat induced, refrigerated and mobility scooter enabled life of petty-serfdom in the rapidly dissolving United States of Burgerstan?

>>17852414
>would you really take living in Chairman Xi's Communist Utopia over a semi-comfortable trans fat induced, refrigerated and mobility scooter enabled life of petty-serfdom in the rapidly dissolving United States of Burgerstan?
At this point I'd be tempted - the first is a far cry from communism, and the second I know is only going to get worse

>>17852363
go fuck yourself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazino_tragedy

>>17852363
Only for its lasting longer.
States are cancerous no matter the flag.

>>17852259
literally >>17852278 this lmao
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-unique-and-its-property

>>17852363
Suprisingly based for a butters post

>>17852238
based

>>17852363
Unironically true

>>17852315
most people are stupid

>>17852363
>Its horrific to have food, and work based on voluntary contracts
Nothing will ever satisfy you

Now that we are living this consumerist hellscape that is efficient yet degenerative, was Shopenhauer right?

>>17855219
>He thinks consumerism is a hellscape
What causes someone to be this brain-dead?

>>17855227
life under capitalism

>>17855490
Its really not. Maybe for a loser like you, but for most people? No. People get by. If its too hard for you, suicide is always an option you can consider.

>>17852238
>Seize and take what you need! Thus, the war of all against all is declared.I alone decide what I will have.
Based caveman

>>17855219
What did Schopenhauer say about consumerism? I'm interested in seeing some quotes if you have them

>>17852315
>one is popular so one is objectively right and better
lol

>>17851250
fpbp
/thread

>>17852368
>>17851223
Kierkegaard.

>>17852363
Dont listen to this poison. This thing spews cancer.

>>17852238
>>17852259
Honorary Appalachian

>>17856492
Believe it, or not, vagabond journals in the United States sometimes referenced Stirner because they interpenetrated his book as form of Appalachian, rustic living.

>>17855208
Christ sake... its not voluntary if you need to do it to survive IDIOT

>>17856970
Yeah, job applications are the most oppressive documents one could ever sign.

>>17856978
you can down play it all you want, consent under duress is not consent, end of story

>>17856991
You're under so much duress when I tell ask you to sign a employment agreement you can back out of.

>>17856995
yes, If im literally going to be kicked out of my home and starve to death if i dont, I am under literally the most extreme duress there is. working so you dont die is not "voluntary"

>>17856970
Mate, even in capitalist hellhole America if you want to neet out and live off welfare/disability you'd be 10x better off than attempting not to work in the fucking Soviet Union.

>>17851796
>>>100 years of communist revolution shows that to be the case

>the killing 100 millions of people by bureaucrats is not total power

I wonder why atheists lack critical thinking so much

>>17856999
You are complaining about the structure of reality.

>>17857005
>muh human nature
what a trite response
>>17857003
soviet union is hardly a shining example of real anarcho-communism. TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS

>>17855208
> so much food that it's the leading cause of death
> voluntary work so all-encompassing people prioritize their career more than family, society, etc.
this is disgusting and arguably worse than what happened under communism. it proves people don't need to be coerced into evil and dissolution
that said, I absolutely don't think communism is the solution to that problem

>>17857022
It's not human nature I am talking about here. As of now there's no system in which people don't have to work to feed themselves. Just variants of how many people can leech off the productive ones.

>>17857032
but muh robits

>>17857036
Sure, those will in economic terms make everyone into an aristocrat.

>>17857032
that does not mean we shouldnt make things more equitable by eliminating capitalists in order to give people who are currently being wageraped the full value of their labour

Marxist dialectics is a point counterpoint for the material realities which can lead to deceitful ideologies
Max Stirner's assertions are more in line with the anarchist-naturalist tendencies for social organization. Both men have contributed massively to civilization

>Marx: entire systems of governance, power centralization and property concentration exists to deny workers the fruits of their own labor, and thus they are exploited

>Stirner: "Man, you have wheels in your head, spooks and thus fixed ideas, just stop believing in them! *lights blunt*

While I enjoyed reading the Ego and His Own, lets not forget that Marx is the only one of the two that is actually grappling with the world as it is.

>>17857038
The poor these days have all the comforts of historical aristocrats, but they still bitch about it. And meanwhile consumption keeps increasing, and the economy will collapse if it was not.
This is only proof that material comfort and progress is essentially pointless

>>17857040
That's just bad economics. Enterpreneurs are under the same competitive pressure as the workers. If they don't adjust their own compensation towards their actual worth they will fail.

>>17857048
It's not gonna be like that in the future. We will simulate material goods and pleasures and the robots will just maintain us. It's going to be a spiritual catastrophe but ultimately unavoidable. Not to be that guy but we're likely already in that.

>>17857063
People keep repeating this notion that robots will do all the jobs, but this is a millennarian fantasy. If you look at any future job projection, the kind of people that will be needed more of in the West are healthcare workers, fastfood workers, janitors, postmen and so on, which are jobs that can't be automated unless something revolutionary happens in A.I the next 5 years.

>>17857071
"You won't ever have to work again!!" is the same carrot-on-a-stick they've been using since the 1700s. It's pretty blatant but humans have short memories

>>17857071
Mineralogists, meteorologists, geologists, volcanologists, IT: computer software, networking, cyber security, data management, bookkeeper, etc.

>>17857071
Everything will be automated you don't need to worry about the reality of that. Obviously this is advanced stuff that could take another 100 years but it will happen. Everything that exists in nature we can recreate, it's just a matter of time.

>>17857063
I work in STEM and I really don't see this ever happening. The tech requirements are insane, and scaling them would be even harder. It's less likely to happen than interstellar travel, and if it does, it will be limited to the elite living in a digitized VR after the proles have been culled.
But yes, we're already in a spiritual catastrophe

>>17857090
No, it won't just "happen".

You don't understand capitalism or economics, a capitalist will never spend 5 billion dollars on research to automate his own industry as long as he can pay a bunch of Third Worlders 5 bucks a day to do the job. Technological change comes from necessity, it doesn't just magically appear.

>>17857090
You say that from a position of faith in science.
The existence of that position says nothing more about humans than the capabilities of science, because science itself does not accept your standard.
I deeply regret that even scientists have trouble with that, these days.

>>17857093
I think breaking our current understanding of physics is a bit more unrealistic than replicating things we find in nature, like a brain and perception. Evolution did it, so can we.

>>17857098
*more about humans, forgot to edit this part before posting

>>17857097
With a scientifc establishment it happens either way. But of course they are already working hard on robotics and even artificial intelligence, they're financed with billions of dollars and given the military potential this whole thing is ultimately subject to an arms race anyway. I would be happy if it weren't so but it is unavoidable.

>>17857104
Efficiently simulating a brain would break our current understanding of physics. For that matter, "replicating perception" is an extreme understatement on all accounts... something as nebulous as perception is not at all easier to understand than the hard math of physics.

>>17857057
LABOR IS THE SOURCE OF VALUE, LABORERS DESERVE THE COMPENSATION NOT "ENTREPRENEURS" read theory holy shit

>>17857098
The timeframe is obviously a matter of debate but other than that it's just a very conservative notion of what is scientifically possible - at least that which exists already.

>>17857119
> military potential
Consider the F35.
The military can't even get a fancier fighter jet working over decades of work. The materials science is just not there, and the tolerances are too tight for our current manufacturing capabilities, and computer optimization is no longer able to cram the solutions into capable tolerances. Tech has somewhat stagnated at this point but nobody wants to admit it.
Finally, the military is more concerned with circlejerking over their subsidies than actually doing the work in a (still) unipolar world.
But all that said, there is no military potential or financing being invested into fancy VRchat, anon.

>>17857123
I'm not saying it's easy but obviously evolution managed to interpret reality through signals. That we can hijack those ports with something that isn't reality appears doable in a theoretical sense.

>>17857129
I was 14 once and read Marx as well, Rousing stuff, I get it. It's nonsense. Not the topic at hand though.

>>17857131
Is it scientifically possible to create a galaxy? Well sure, because there are lots of them around.
Is it possible for us, or will it ever be possible? I don't think so.

>>17857146
Not him, but your statement is just wrong. The whole point of capitalism is to produce profit, and capitalism itself doesn't work if most of that profit doesn't go to a capitalist so he can reinvest the money.

So the idea that an entrepreneur has to adjust their compensation to their "actual worth" is just false economics, capitalism literally doesn't work unless a very small minority of people get most of the money so they can reinvest it in other ventures.

>>17857138
That was more related to the notion of artificial intelligence not VR. Obviously even the entertainment industry in the broad sense sees enormous potential in such technology. But there are all sorts of applications. A lot of medical research will ultimately become relevant. There are gigantic amounts of resources working on those technologies.
It's difficult to say if techonology slowed down or maybe even accelerated so I won't comment on that but we know that the profession of scientist will massively expand with China and India growing their economies. Technological advancement won't stop. You can look at all sorts of crazy shit online that only existed in science fiction twenty years ago.

>>17857152
That's a bit of an odd example which I considered to address in the formulation. Clearly I am talking about the works of evolution. This process used the same resources that we have access to. In fact we have many more. It managed to create the brain, a structure arguably more complex than a galaxy.

>>17857162
I don't really want to discuss the economics here and we don't even have a shared understanding of what capitalism is.

Stirner memes are funny but let's be honest, the only reason he's so loved by amerishits is because he was against Marx and communism bad because it's bad

>>17857185
>shared understanding

lol. This is a discussion about economics dude, it's not a fucking church.

>>17857162
just our of curiosity, what do think a nation would look like if there was no concentrated accumulation of wealth to be invested into large scale projects?

>>17857207
Sorry I was talking about other things, not saying I'm the one on topic.

>>17857212
Well it doesn't matter what I think it would look like really, Marx's idea is that workers have an objective self-interest in abolishing capitalism because they do all the work and only get fractions of the compensation, just like slaves had an objective self-interest in abolishing slavery because it produced an aristocracy that lived parasitically on the backs of the slaves' labor.

That said, capitalism might never be abolished even if that is in the worker's interest. I don't believe in some inevitable historical determinism.

>>17856970
You were still obligated to work under the Soviets fucktard

>>17857231
>Marx's idea is that workers have an objective self-interest in abolishing capitalism because they do all the work and only get fractions of the compensation
couldn't it be said a worker is sort of indirectly compensated by the benefits of concentrated wealth, like the ability to field an army, or grandiose projects of science, logistics, architecture, etc? without big concentrations of power and wealth investment to grow stronger and enforce their sovereignty the people would be literal slaves instead of metaphorical ones

>>17856970
>... its not voluntary if you need to do it to survive
You can NEET or be a hobo either. I've done both, as well as working. Working is the best option, though Hoboing around is fun for a few years and most people should do it for the perspective if anything. NEETing is shite in my experience.