15
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Huumm, I mean Marx was also very anti-Stirner, but Stirner’s thoughts work very well with Marxism. Like any “conscious egoist” can realize that the only path to liberation for the individual is through communism. Communism is literally the free individual acting out its own self-interest, but realising his own self-interest is intertwined with all of humanity, and all of Earth.

Nihilism doesn’t have to be incompatible with Marxism or communism. Like I never thought that deeply about it, but I don’t think anything about it is inherently anti-communist. Nihilism is about how there is not grand plan, or purpose, to any individual or collective. That all ideals are empty. That’s basically it. Nothing about that is anti-communist.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

The thing is, with Stirner, it seems to me if the communist union of egoists couldn't continue, at the temporary expense of one of their egos, then it would cease to be a union of egoists, and thus he'd reject any such organization of it...

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

That’s making his thought into something it definitely is not. It’s not a system. The idea of the union of egoists is that it is the only possible truly free association between people. Under communism, all associations would be union of egoists, and no one would ever think about them or even have that name for them. They would just exist, and do things with other people for different purposes at different times, always only when it’s beneficial to all involved, and stopping when it stops being beneficial for any party.

Or isn’t communism the total liberation of the individual? (among other things ofc, but to me it was always the main one tbh, in how I understand things - not a libertarian or anything)

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Under communism, all associations would be union of egoists, and no one would ever think about them or even have that name for them. They would just exist, and do things with other people for different purposes at different times, always only when it’s beneficial to all involved, and stopping when it stops being beneficial for any party.

Ah okey...

this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
15 points (89.5% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

735 readers
46 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS