/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19736513]

He's quite popular among fascists. Its really weird how people just ignore this. Evola, Mussolini and Junger were fans of him and utilized him for their works. Newer fascist groups like Casapound have muralized him. The most recent translation of his work "The Unique and Its Property" was published by a white nationalist.
I don't get why so many anarchists like him. A guy who makes "might makes right" arguments, defends the wealth of the rich, admonishes communism, openly defends murder, and even went out of his way to make Thrasymachus's argument against Proudhon doesn't seem to fit very well with the anarchists of today. A man who only values the liberty of his own self, an endless war of all against all, doesn't seem like the guy who would be the poster model of communist anarchism. He has the relativism of fascists and their ethics. I don't think that makes him a bad theorist though. That makes him much more interesting.

[Anonymous No.19736538]

>>19736513
He was an unabashed egoist, of course he would be appealing to all kinds of political radical since at bottom they are egoists too.
Yeah, radicalized young white guy in his 20s, you’re just SO much smarter than the “cattle” that don’t adopt your murderous failed ideology.
You want people to listen to you, you get into arguments on the Internet expanding every fine point about your boneheaded beliefs to an audience in anticipation of attention in the form of (You)s.
Because what you really want is for others to flatter your ego with “based” and “redpilled” replies to your posts.
Chud.

[Anonymous No.19736547]

>>19736513
>surprised an egoist is common among people who want power

[Anonymous No.19736551]

>>19736538
>Chud.

[Anonymous No.19736559]

>>19736547
That's the thing - anarchists don't want people to have power. They spend their entire time screaming about power being in the wrong hands.

[Anonymous No.19736580]

>>19736559
You can do that while still liking Stirner's points. There is no contradiction here.

Also there are many kinds of anarchists. Leftist anarchists are a a little strange though, they do not make sense to me either.

[Anonymous No.19736601]

>>19736538
>Yeah, radicalized young white guy in his 20s, you’re just SO much smarter than the “cattle” that don’t adopt your murderous failed ideology.
I wouldn't say I'm smarter than the "cattle." There has to be cattle otherwise no one would graze the grass. I'm not even white myself. I just see myself agreeing with fascists more than I do leftists ever so slowly. I think it comes my experiences with them. I think fascists have a better understanding of the world than leftists. Sadly, I don't see potential in any of the fascist align groups in my country. National Bolshevics like Striker are too vulgar and stupid. The alt-right no longer exists. The only groups that are left are National Conservatives, and regular conservatives, who too much on Trump's cock. There isn't any exciting fascist activity here.

[Anonymous No.19736604]

>>19736513
He was an influence on Carl Schmitt as well. Is there any text where the relation of far rightists and fascists with Stirner is discussed?

[Anonymous No.19736636]

>>19736604
Kołakowski did. Lawrence Stepelevich there were quite a few German Marxists who did, but there work has not been translated from German.

[Anonymous No.19736650]

>“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, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable.”

[Anonymous No.19736744]

>>19736636
Damn I guess I need to put learning German higher in my priorities. Thanks for the recs anyway.

[Anonymous No.19736753]

>>19736513
He didn't have real influence he's a meme for larpers.

[Anonymous No.19737513]

>>19736538
based and redpilled you sure showed those chuds

[Anonymous No.19737842]

>>19736538
You are right anon

[Anonymous No.19737932]

>>19736559
So much this

>Power came about a trillion times before because that's how things work
>power is always there
>"""Get rid of power"""
>power comes back because it's necessary

It's almost like anarchists are just anti-social retards that made another dumb failed ideology that can't appreciate reality working the way it does.

[Anonymous No.19737945]

>>19736538
>being intelligent and self-centered is now "politically radicalized"

[Anonymous No.19737946]

>>19736513
People see in Stirner what they want to see. He’s kind of like Nietzsche or the Buddha in that way.

[Anonymous No.19737954]

I liked the scene in Berlin Alexanderplatz where Franz and one of his buddies go to an Anarchist meeting. One of the speakers who was quoting Stirner tries chatting up Franz and his buddy but loses interest in Franz when he finds out that he isn’t a worker but just lives off his whore girlfriend’s earnings.
I laughed at first because I didn’t think anybody outside of /lit/ had a clue who Stirner was. I laughed again at the Stirner quoting anarchist’s moral qualms about Franz’s easy rider existence.

[Anonymous No.19737990]

>>19736513
I believe Stirner was being descriptive of reality when he makes statements about might-makes-right. In fact, I'm pretty sure he explicitly notes that he does not speak of what should be, but what evidently is.
That said, I imagine anarchists like him because he presents the antidote to communism's fatal flaw- Namely, an obsession with community that destroys the individual. A union of egoists is the best way to achieve socialism- That's what I think Stirner advocated for, anyways; A celebration of I and Me, together.
It also helps that he notes how the Individual is the very center of where all rights derive.

[Anonymous No.19738048]

>>19736513
>I don't get why so many anarchists like him. A guy who makes "might makes right" arguments, defends the wealth of the rich, admonishes communism, openly defends murder, and even went out of his way to make Thrasymachus's argument against Proudhon doesn't seem to fit very well with the anarchists of today.
I know that most anarchists are just milquetoast liberals who haven't turned 14 yet, but contemporary anarchism is really a modern version of fascist syndicalism, just with the nationalistic idea of worker-class producers replaced with the more modern liberal conception of atomic, autonomous individuals. I mean I guess this isn't anything new because they both arose from the same foment, but you can find plenty of "intellectual" anarchists online (which is to say the ones that think about what being an anarchist means and not just the dumbest guy at a bad punk show) happily reproducing the sort of shit Sorel and Mussolini would happily nod along to.

Anarchists also love this "build a new world from the ashes of the old" shit which has some ontological overlap with fascism along with doompilled nihilism so you could say the anarchists were doompilled before doomers.

Naturally, Twitter anarchists are also fucking dumb lifestyle anarchists, but also real-life anarchists have mostly fucked off and given up on trying to do anything but build small communities within the decaying structure we already live in rather than change anything significant which seems impossible.

[Anonymous No.19738054]

>>19737946
This. Stirner's ideas have little to do with modern anarchist thought, whatever that is at this very moment..

[Anonymous No.19738087]

>>19736513
lol its more surprising that any sort of collectivist or populist ideology like natsoc would be into him. He's clearly an individualist, and roots of anarchism are in individualism, whatever it has degenerated into today.

[Anonymous No.19738113]

>>19736513
Left libs, regardless of their flavor, all end up subsumed into the broader left's lunacy. Right wing libertarians are the people whose political programs least conflict with Stirner.

[Anonymous No.19738554]

>>19736580

Can you elaborate? I feel like authorotarian leftists are what doesn't make sense to me – but I'm probably closest to being a filthy pinko anarchist

[Anonymous No.19738577]

>>19736547
>people who want power
>not the left

[Anonymous No.19738682]

>>19736559
>>19737932
But anarchism does not claim power should or even could be removed, it's not a kebab.
Anarchism questions legitimacy of power holders.
If power should be controlled so nobody gets too powerful, anarchists would, contrary to commies or fascists who rely on state power, rather justify you taking power where you can individually or by joining a syndicate, neighborhood, commune, family or a gang.

[Anonymous No.19738717]

>>19738682
>If power should be controlled so nobody gets too powerful, anarchists would, contrary to commies or fascists who rely on state power, rather justify you taking power where you can individually or by joining a syndicate, neighborhood, commune, family or a gang.
They do but the left and non-left divide is over the nature of the solution. The question hanging in the air is how you prevent States and monopolies of power from forming, which itself usually involves some kind of State monopoly on certain powers.

[Anonymous No.19738865]

>>19738717
Yeah, I agree. Anarchism doesn't provide a solution for this. It works well in small communities and subcultures but fails to combat states and monopolies effectively.
This is why i see egoism/individualism/illegalism as the only acceptable forms of anarchism in complex global society. They don't provide solutions to societal questions or have a spook vision of utopia, they just treat society as an environment in which the individual operates. If you want to go fight on Nazi side for glory as Jünger did, or join republic of Fiume with d'Annunzio, you can still remain an anarchist free of any ideology.

[Anonymous No.19740547]

>>19736513
Emma Goldman was influenced by him, no? That's enough. If the based red Emma liked Stirner, who cares if the fashies do it too?

[Anonymous No.19740696]

>>19736538
Everyone is an egoist lmao, its just that most people seek admiration for their egos through starting families, having a career, being a normal human being with lots of friends and etc.

[Anonymous No.19740846]

>>19736513
It's because anarchists today aren't anarchists, really, they're just lazy dipshits who don't like being told what to do but are simultaneously incapable of managing their own lives. They hate "the system," but at the same time they are completely dependent on it because they have no natural aptitude for dealing with life. They can't process this contradiction and they can't improve themselves, so all they can do is smash windows and make edgelord statements about "anarchy." The last thing these kinds of faggots would want is actual anarchy, because in a state of anarchy they would:

A) be 100% responsible for themselves, and
B) have literally zero protection, both from external aggressors and from the consequences of their own retarded actions.

Watch an antifa demonstration up close some time if you want to see what I mean. "Anarchist" in current parlance refers to someone who screeches about "fascist" police, while simultaneously relying on said fascists to protect them from getting their shit kicked in by the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers and whatever equally cringe right-normie groups are there to counter-demonstrate. The real anarchists are the guys who stay in their comfy homes and eat popcorn, watching the various retard groups beat the shit out of each other while the cops play tard-wrangler.

[Anonymous No.19740889]

In this thread we see the "anti-fa" people calling everybody they don't like fascists being they themselves fascists, as always.

[Anonymous No.19740945]

>>19736513
>>19736513
I don't know why one should waste time on him when people like Evola have already solved the quandaries he brought up. He is the epitome of mid-wit tier. I also don't think most people are interested in fascism anymore. Being far-right, sure, that is obvious, but fascism I don't think so.

[Anonymous No.19741101]

>>19740945
>. He is the epitome of mid-wit tier. I
How so?
People that make grandiose statements and refuse to elaborate further are the worst.

[Anonymous No.19741130]

>>19736513
>Jünger
>fascist
??

[Anonymous No.19741135]

>>19736513
>openly defends murder
based

[Anonymous No.19741139]

>>19736601
Lol if you don't like any of the parties start your own. Start writing and debating at local clubs and begin working from there.

[Anonymous No.19741415]

>>19736513
you seem to have mistaken anarchists with communists

[Anonymous No.19741434]

educate yourself

[Anonymous No.19741505]

>>19740945
Yeah Evola is the epitome of mid-wit tier.

[Anonymous No.19741543]

>>19741130
Yeah he was a fascist until he became a traitor coward.

[Anonymous No.19741610]

he's popular among people with a colorful view of reality

[Anonymous No.19741613]

Whatever happened to the good Junger threads?

[Anonymous No.19741635]

>>19741434
Burning that tripe is educational

[Anonymous No.19741799]

>>19741635
>tripe
It's literally just a compilation of significant anarchist writings and a single essay by malice at the end

[Anonymous No.19741828]

>>19736513
>A man who only values the liberty of his own self, an endless war of all against all, doesn't seem like the guy who would be the poster model of communist anarchism.
Well that's the problem isn't it. Anarchists used to not believe in that faggy stuff. "Communist anarchism" is a LARP by 5th Columnists to lightly introduce Communism to the dogs they're going to work to death ina bauxite mine.

[Anonymous No.19742087]

>>19741613
Jünger anon must have had his apartment raided by the Bundesverfassungsschutz.

[Anonymous No.19743076]

>>19741543
Dilate

[Anonymous No.19743080]

>>19741543
He wasn't a fascist.

[Anonymous No.19743138]

>>19736559
Anarchists are just fascists in denial

[Anonymous No.19743221]

>>19736513
Anarchists, like everyone else, base their political ideas on their ethical worldview. Stirner attacks the base of this, revealing all their ethical precepts be spooky. The whole field of ethics is ultimately about abstractions that are projected onto the real world - a rebellion of the weak against the natural order. When people like Stirner point this out everyone seethes with resentment because it's irrefutable.

>“Just as the schoolmen philosophized only inside the belief of the church, … without ever throwing a doubt upon this belief; as authors fill whole folios on the State without calling in question the fixed idea of the State itself; as our newspapers are crammed with politics because they are conjured into the fancy that man was created to be a zoon politicon,—so also subjects vegetate in subjection, virtuous people in virtue, liberals in humanity, etc., without ever putting to these fixed ideas of theirs the searching knife of criticism. Undislodgeable, like a madman’s delusion, those thoughts stand on a firm footing, and he who doubts them—lays hands on the sacred!”

[Anonymous No.19743910]

>>19736513
Considering anarchism ultimately finds its origins with peasants, and that fascists find their basis among the propertied middle classes and repressive state, it makes sense they'd have some overlap. They both have a sentimental attachment to the ways of the past.

[Anonymous No.19743916]

>>19740846
>movement is defined by its contemporary adherents in the USA
Why?

[Anonymous No.19743979]

>>19736538
>murderous failed ideology.
Nice jew propaganda.
Communism and neoliberalism both murdered more people and, unlike fascism, are destroying themselves.

[Anonymous No.19744016]

>>19736538
Good post. Why did you have to ruin it by adding Chud at the end?

[Anonymous No.19744061]

>>19743979
>This thing is BAD so this other thing NOT BAD
This is your brain on binary thinking

[Anonymous No.19744506]

>>19740846
>A) be 100% responsible for themselves, and
>B) have literally zero protection, both from external aggressors and from the consequences of their own retarded actions.
This sounds like a fantastic world, anon.

[Anonymous No.19745310]

>>19743080
He was a fascist.

[Anonymous No.19745629]

>>19744016
He's radicalized himself as the center cannot hold, I have to admit it is kind of funny watching the people who obsess the most about looking normal slowly lose their minds over the last.... 5-10ish years.

[Anonymous No.19745842]

>>19737946
>People see in Stirner what they want to see.

yeah, it´s funny when ideologues (from the left and the right) see him as an inspiration, what a bunch of morons

[Anonymous No.19745864]

i like Robert Anton Wilson short review on his book:

The Ego and His Own, by Max Stirner
Libertarian Book Club, New York, 1964, $1.95

This is probably the most disturbing, shocking and generally infuriating book in the whole history of political philosophy. First published in Germany in 1844, it aroused a violent storm of controversy—and, then, inexplicably, was suddenly forgotten. In 1907, the first American translation ignited another storm of controversary—which again died out quickly. It remains to be seen
what will be the fate of this new edition.

Max Stirner was (aside from the somewhat psychotic Marquis de Sade) the only political-ethical thinker in all history who deliberately rejected all forms of authority over the individual. Since he was a German, living in the Age of Hegel, he saw fit to express this ultra-individualistic position in an exhaustive (and exhausting) book. The Ego and His Own starts out by giving the Church the worst drubbing it has had since Voltaire and Tom Paine; but that is only the beginning. Stirner then proceeds to tear down the idealism of the State, monarchistic or democratic, and then in turn demolishes the various forms of liberalism, socialism and radicalism. All that remains undemolished by Stirner’s destructive logic is—the Ego and his own.

If you are an individualist, or think you are, you should read Stirner to find out if you are willing to carry self-assertion as far as he. (You probably will draw the line long before he does.) If you are not an individualist, beware—this book will give you high blood pressure. A final word of warning: Ayn Rand disciples will not like Stirner, who ends up his book as a socialist, albeit a peculiarly egotistic socialist. (No socialist party around today would accept Stirner, except the anarchists, and even most of them reject him.) Who will like this book? The man who has the guts to think for himself and who refuses to bow to any authority except his own independent judgement.

The Ego and His Own reviewed by Robert Anton Wilson appeared in Jaguar, Volume 1, Issue 6 in November 1965.

[Anonymous No.19746006]

>openly defends murder
Often when there are murders there is retaliation, or the murderers suffer some other terrible fate (kill farmers, wow there's a famine).

Also, there would be an awful lot of energy and time spent defending yourself from possible attackers. Tough to develop culturally or technologically.

[Anonymous No.19746022]

>>19746006
cool insight pal

[Anonymous No.19746522]

>>19745864
Nice piece, thanks for sharing. RAW reminds me of Hakim Bey.

[Anonymous No.19746738]

>>19743916
If there's a difference between antifa in the USA and antifa in Europe I'm not aware of it. As far as I can tell it's the same kind of crybaby throwing the same kind of tantrum. Besides, it's primarily an urban mentality, and there's very little significant difference between American and European cities anymore anyway.

[Anonymous No.19746788]

>>19743979
Fascism destroyed itself bu starting too many wars it couldn't win

[Anonymous No.19746976]

>>19746788
>Fascism destroyed itself
That's the whole point of fascism though, it's just death drive pushed to its limit.

[Anonymous No.19748137]

>>19746788
Name 3 wars

[Anonymous No.19748750]

>>19738113
>Right wing libertarians are the people whose political programs least conflict with Stirner.
Lmao.

[Anonymous No.19748753]

>>19745310
No, he wasn't fascist.

[Anonymous No.19749062]

>>19737990
I agree

Stirner's ideas of 'onesss' and the like are extremely liberating to me

[Anonymous No.19749156]

ITT:
>a bunch of ex anarchists that just conformed due to insecurities and became leftists

you can lie to yourself, it doesn't make an argument

[Anonymous No.19749220]

>>19736513
>Stirner "[sic] defends the wealth of the rich"
Lol.
>>19736559
>"anarchists don't want people to have power"
Do you think 2+2=5?
>>19738048
>most anarchists are just milquetoast liberals who haven't turned 14 yet
Delusion.
>>19743221
I wouldn't necessarily say that ethics are "a rebellion of the weak against natural order", more so of a suppression of the individual by the state.
>>19737990
This is a good assessment, a communist union would be prolonged despite not benefiting each individual.

[Anonymous No.19749897]

>>19736538
>failed ideology

When has fascism failed in peace time?

[Anonymous No.19751183]

>>19749156
What makes you say that?

[Anonymous No.19751209]

>>19736513
>He's quite popular among fascists. Its really weird how people just ignore this.
What do you mean? Multiple leftist writers critique anarchism and individualist ideology in general as a proto-fascist and bourgeoisie.

[Anonymous No.19751238]

>>19736601
you might like this essay, it seems your backgrounds are similar
https://tinkzorg.wordpress.com/2020/05/07/on-strasserism-and-the-decay-of-the-left/

[Anonymous No.19751917]

>>19736538
based and redpilled : ^ )