/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18679367]

>I can do whatever I want within the limits of my power
Literally just Fascism without the idealist epistemology. Musso was a huge Neech fanboy too, and I know for sure he read Stirner back when he was a radical socailist.

Also what the fuck is this new capatcha. Literally unreadable. Who the fuck had the bright idea of implementing it?

[Anonymous No.18679371]

>things I dont understand are fascism
Wow OP you're a retard.

[Anonymous No.18679391]

>>18679371
No it's fascism. Will to power is the most fundamental tenant of fascism and Stirner is literally advocating for no different that in this book.

[Anonymous No.18679404]

>>18679391
>Tenant
Tenet*
Fuck.

[Anonymous No.18679411]

>>18679367
New capatcha is an IQ test. It is made to keep niggers out.
>>18679371
OP is a nigger who cannot even solve a capatcha. Obviously he is brain dead

[Anonymous No.18679420]

>>18679367
What’s the best translation of Stirner’s Ego and It’s Own?

[Anonymous No.18679427]

>>18679391
Its not really, but lets say it is fascist for your sake; you still dont have an argument or anything meaningful to discuss.

[Anonymous No.18679433]

>>18679367
It's pretty individualistic as opposed to fascism

[Anonymous No.18679434]

>>18679427
Are you saying the will to power is not an important aspect of Fascism and the literal basis of the party?

[Anonymous No.18679442]

>>18679433
What is more individualistic than beating up people as a means of fulfilling your own self righteous end?

Fascist "collectivism" is "do what I tell you because it's good for everyone and I say so". The only difference between Fascism and Anarchism is the principle of command.

[Anonymous No.18679450]

>>18679434
Fascism is a political ideology that relys on groups of people coming together to achieve things while Stirner advocates solely for the individual.

[Anonymous No.18679459]

>>18679367
Collectivism is a spook

[Anonymous No.18679477]

>>18679442
Sounds like most dictators really. Che Guevara even mentioned Nietzsche as one of his influences. Sounds like you havent read Stirner and want somebody to lay out an argument to fit your own narrative.

[Anonymous No.18679497]

>>18679450
Stirner had his union of Egoists and the Fascists had their combat squads. Stirner just gets into yada yada "voluntary" crap while uttering in the same breath he wants to "abolish morality". Why does someone who seeks to abolish morality give a shit whether he is imposing his will unto others?
The Fascists unlike the Stirnerites had more balls.
>>18679477
Stirner wants to abolish Morality because it is imposed on to him by spooks. He quite literally wants to be able to do whatever he wants without any external constraints on his ego.

[Anonymous No.18679501]

>>18679367
Didn't Mussolini translate Stirner in Italian?
I know some other in his government were fans.

[Anonymous No.18679506]

>>18679367
Fascism is a prescriptive ideological category. Stirner isn't prescriptive at all - he doesn't tell you what you ought to do, he just shows you the possibilities when you abandon ideological constraints. To say the man is "fascist" is so fucking strange considering man explicitly calls Diogenes a conscious egoist. Is Diogenes a fascist now?

[Anonymous No.18679522]

>>18679497
Stirner never said abolish morality. You did not read the book at all, retard. Stirner says morality is actually useful for an egoist because "morality" is a personal prerogative. Stirner said he condemns thieves not because their evil, but because condemning protects him from theft. However, this may change if he becomes a thief - he will no longer condemn thieves out of personal shake.

[Anonymous No.18679550]

A lot of retards who don't read Stirner don't seem to understand he made it clear you could use his words for anything you desired, and he does not have a specific interpretation. Stirner is norminalist. Stirner makes a foretelling reference to the bible - how idiots to this day are fighting over what Christ meant. He saw the same problem happening to people who read his book. There is no single, sacred interpretation of Stirner. When communists read Saint Max, they get confused, because they're pious atheists are used to "objective interpretations" of text when its an hilarious exercise in futility. If you had some sense; you would have done what Stirner did, you would make money and have fun with your life instead of wasting your time with the philosophy Hegelian nobodies like him.

[Anonymous No.18679566]

>>18679501
Yes he did, Bakunin and Kropotkin too from French to Italian I think. He was a pretty hardcore Leftist, but he really didn't want to bring conflict or Civil war into Italy so adopt the class collaboration stuff from Mazzini to develop industrial capitalism in Italy and pave the way to socialism through that way, or at least I think so from my understanding of Musso.
>>18679506
>Fascism is a prescriptive ideological category.
No it isn't. Why do you think British Fascism was more individualistic than Italian Fascism?
>Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth … then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity... From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.
-Musso
>Is Diogenes a fascist now?
In fascist epistemology pretty much everyone who tries to shape the world according to their vision can be interpreted to be a Fascist. Diogenes sat around with a bowl (of that even) shitposting IRL and freaking out Plato's students. Maybe this was Diogenes' will, and thus he can be interpreted as a Fascist.
>>18679522
Did YOU read the book?
Page 233, Byington Edition:
>orality is incompatible with egoism, because the former does not allow validity to me, but only to the Man in me. But, if the State is a society of men, not a union of egos each of whom has only himself before his eyes, then it cannot last without morality, and must insist on morality. Therefore we two, the State and I, are enemies. I, the egoist, have not at heart the welfare of this "human society," I sacrifice nothing to it, I only utilize it; but to be able to utilize it completely I transform it rather into my property and my creature; i. e., I annihilate it, and form in its place the Union of Egoists

>>18679550
I am not against Stirner, I agree with him. Morality is just something to use for my own ends. I am arguing something else.

[Anonymous No.18679568]

>>18679497
So a bunch of academics who literally in their commandments lay out how they can only voluntarily have authority over others versus a bunch of militarized autocrats who believed in imperialism?

>b-but they believed in systems of power.
So what? Not everything is evil nazi boogeymen, strong willed people will always exist as a counterpart of human nature.

[Anonymous No.18679581]

>>18679568
>So a bunch of academics who literally in their commandments lay out how they can only voluntarily have authority over others
My question is asking why say things like "using morality to your own end" and then do a 360 and saying "hold it right there our union is completely democratic and voluntary!" and stupid Liberal shit like that.

Why not go full Neech mode and say "Fuck you! I am Dynamite!"
This is why I cannot take Stirner or Egoism seriously.

[Anonymous No.18679585]

>>18679581
>360
You know what I meant lmao.

It's too late i'm going to bed, maybe my brain is having trouble processing all the things I read today. I think this is over eating.

Goodnight. op out. (For now)

[Anonymous No.18679591]

>>18679581
>360
You know what I meant lmao.

It's too late i'm going to bed, maybe my brain is having trouble processing all the things I read today. I think this is the equivalent over eating.

Goodnight. op out. (For now)

[Anonymous No.18679646]

>>18679581
The egoist sees things everything in the world as their property as long as they can exert their will into it. An egoist would use morality when it suits them and abandon it when it doesn't. The union of egoist is basically just a group of people that happen to have an interest that aligns with each other. An example of this is a group of kids playing hide and seek or some shit. The interests of the kids align and they can leave whenever they want to. This isn't really comparable to fascism at all. Also property in the stirner sense isn't property in the traditional sense. Property in stirner terms is basically everything you can exert your will into: ideas, people, object, etc.

[Anonymous No.18679675]

>>18679646
What is Fascism?

[Anonymous No.18679691]

>>18679367
>everything is fascism
One day you will be the one on the chopping block, moron.

[Anonymous No.18679710]

>>18679691
>>everything is fascism
This but Ironically

[Anonymous No.18679723]

>18679367
>Literally just Fascism without the idealist epistemology.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
omg that's a new one
and one of the more retarded ones/

>I know for sure he read Stirner back when he was a radical socialist.
Yeah he said he did, congratz on turning 12 anon.

>this new capatcha. Literally unreadable.
Reddit fag confirmed
All the plebbit fags are seething because you need at least 80 IQ to solve the new captcha.

>>18679371
This OPs faggot ass BTFO for eternity.

>No it's fascism.
Nice assertion without evidence.
>Will to power is the most fundamental tenant of fascism
Sauce?
>Stirner is literally advocating for no different that in this book.
What is individual will to power and collective will to power??
The UTTER state of reddit users.

>>18679450
THIS
OP again blow the fuck out.

>Stirner had his union of Egoists and the Fascists had their combat squads.
literally completely differant.
But ill role with it.
Communism had red terror squads and capitalism had coco-cola™ deathsquad.
Communism, facism, anarchism and capitalism are all ACTHUALLY the same ideology.
Congratz OP you are a faggot.

[Anonymous No.18679730]

>>18679675
anything OP doesnt like
>ALL FIELDS

[Anonymous No.18679755]

>>18679497
>Why does someone who seeks to abolish morality give a shit whether he is imposing his will unto others?
He doesn't.
However if you assert yourself on other it isn't a union of egoists.
Its one ego asserting authority over others.
Simple as.
>The Fascists unlike the Stirnerites had more balls.
With the exception of Dirlewanger who put egoism into praxis.
>Stirner wants to abolish Morality because it is imposed on to him by spooks. He quite literally wants to be able to do whatever he wants without any external constraints on his ego.
DANGEROUSLY BASED

>>18679522
Stirner never said abolish morality.
Correct he rejected its existence all together, For him, you cant abolish something that doesn't exist.
>morality is actually useful for an egoist because "morality" is a personal prerogative.
t. a spooked faggot.
>Stirner said he condemns thieves not because their evil, but because condemning protects him from theft.
so long as you ignore the part where he says that he asks for no right and respect no in return.
Also that part where he said "I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!”
Pls read Stirner before you try to speak on his philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18679759]

>>18679367
>>I can do whatever I want
a bug killed him and he probably got annihilated in hell...sad way to go.

[Anonymous No.18679761]

>>18679730
OP is literally just saying that both Stirner and Fascists want to enforce their will onto others, the difference being that Fascists use a Neo-Idealist epistemology to justify it.

[Anonymous No.18679767]

>>18679755
Based Stirner poster!!!!
Nazism isn't Fascism btw

[Anonymous No.18679952]

>>18679761
Wtf fuck is a neo-idist.
And how does that differ from regular idealist.

>OP is literally just saying that both Stirner and Fascists want to enforce their will onto others
I disagree.
The brainlet said
>Literally just Fascism without the idealist epistemology
Which means it has everything income with the only exception being fascism is idealist.
If it was merely that fascists and egoist both desire to force their will on people that can be said of literally every ideology, e.g Communism, capitalism and neo-liberalism as well as religion.

[Anonymous No.18680054]

>>18679566
>Did YOU read the book?
Page 233, Byington Edition
Yeah, read the first paragraph instead cherry picking,
>If the state must count on our humanity, then it's the same when one says: it must count on your morality.
When he speaks of "morality" he's talking about humanism. When he speaks of "your morality" - he's talking about you. One can reject human moral for their own set of moral. Egoism is a moral doctrine.
>>18679755
>"Do I want to advise you to be like the beasts? I certainly can't suggest that you should become like beasts, because this is also a task, an ideal ("The bee can outdo you in industriousness"). It would also be the same as if you wished that beasts would become human. You
nature is after all a human one; you are human natures, i.e., human beings. But precisely because you already are so, you don't still need to become so. Beasts too are "trained;' and a trained beast does many unnatural things. But a trained dog is no better for itself than a natural one, and gains nothing from it, even if the dog is more companionable for us."
You're trying way too hard. He's telling you what to do. Stop larping.

[Anonymous No.18680067]

>>18679646
So this guy gets it,
>>18679755
>>18679566
>>18679755
These are idiots and larpers who have not read the book, and are trying too hard to shoe horn Stirner into their retarded twitter ideology.

[Anonymous No.18680072]

>>18679566
>In fascist epistemology pretty much everyone who tries to shape the world according to their vision
So, I guess you're a fascist now because you're self interested? Do you people even read what you type.

[Anonymous No.18680099]

Also, these fucking idiots talking about the "union egoists" - you realize that was a joke - right? The "union of egoists" was Stirner's literally joking about "The Free" - the group of Hegelians he hung out with. The union of egoists is literally the mutua normian associations people make out of self interest. Its not a "society" , or a plan of a future society. We already have unions of egoists, unions of people working together for a common cause for self interested matter. When I take my girlfriend out to the movies - that's a union of egoists, two people having together. Its not some anarchist communist bullshit. A union egoists with when a bunch Cuban protestors go out to the streets to push over police cars because they want a change in government. These are ordinary things people do out of self interest. All these heuristic analysis from people about Stirner are just idiots from twitter trying too hard to chase ideological fads. Please, just log off the internet.

[Anonymous No.18680103]

>>18679371
/thread

[Anonymous No.18680357]

>>18679367
jesus christ are you american ?

[Anonymous No.18680468]

>>18679442
>What is more individualistic than beating up people as a means of fulfilling your own self righteous end?
Not telling people beat you up. Also, you fascists are retards. Stirner isn't an anarchist. A dude who mocks Proudhon for being an anarchist, rejects revolution, and translates Adam Smith has little do with an anarchism. You're such a retard, bro. You just skim Wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.18680560]

Dude anarchism where you can do whatever you want, and fascism where the guberment tells you to do everything is totally the sam dudde!!!

[Anonymous No.18681061]

You have an idealistic understanding of Stirner. Stirner does not make men fascists; conditions do. You are more interested in ideological tropes you've been indoctrinated with from MSNBC than understanding the true nature of things. You will always be a deluded person if seek this way.

[Anonymous No.18681073]

>>18679367
>retard is getting filtered by the new captcha
Figures.

>>18679391
>Will to power is the most fundamental tenant of fascism
No, the most fundamental tenant of fascism is absolute political power given to a single individual. Will to power is fundamental to all political systems and is synonymous with nature itself.