/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12430271]

Why do leftists love Stirner but hate Ayn Rand?

[Anonymous No.12430281]

>>12430271
Because those are the opinions they were told to have

[Anonymous No.12430287]

i don't know, op, why don't you share your thoughts with us

[OP No.12430291]

>>12430287
They're both hyper-individualists, I really don't know why.

[Anonymous No.12430293]

>>12430271
Wait, isn't it the opposite?

[Anonymous No.12430340]

>>12430291
There's a fundamental difference. Ayn Rand's form of individualism was tied to a strict ethical system that enshrined private property as sacred, meanwhile Stirner's individualism negated all higher essences, including property.

[Anonymous No.12430347]

Anarcho-communists vs anarcho-capitalists.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.12430369]

>>12430291
Stirner wasnt against people joining in unions

[Anonymous No.12430629]

>>12430347
Rand=LfCap not AnCap

[Anonymous No.12430631]

>>12430271
most leftists haven't read him and just cherrypick quotes

[Anonymous No.12430682]

Stirner is anti-capitalist, and Ayn Rand isn't, what's hard to understand? Yes you can say Stirner is anti communist and whatever too, but he's clearly more aligned with the left than right if you actually read him.

[Anonymous No.12430716]

>>12430271
>durr why don't leftists like metacapitalist philosopher guize

[Anonymous No.12430787]

>>12430271
The converse can be asked, why do American rightists hate Stirner but love Ayn Rand?

[Anonymous No.12430804]

why don't you ask them?

[Anonymous No.12430807]

cuz capitalism is just another spook

[Anonymous No.12430809]

>>12430804
based

[Anonymous No.12430821]

>>12430787
Its not true. Right-wing thinkers like Ernst Junger were very influenced by Stirner (read his Eumeswil for example). Rand is a thing just in the US, where left/right division is fucked up

[Anonymous No.12430828]

>>12430821
did you even read my spoiler idiot!!!!

[Anonymous No.12430846]

>>12430828
I actually did not
sry

[Anonymous No.12430851]

>>12430828
>puts things in spoiler tags
>hurr why didn't you read the spoiler
?

[Anonymous No.12430854]

>>12430271
Love is a spook. Anyone who likes actual *liberty* will align with Stirner. Modern "leftists" don't fit in this category. Radical egotism is antithetical to hierarchical or even "equal" societies.

[Anonymous No.12430864]

>>12430854
Yea, but also idea, or ideology, of liberty (known as libertarianism or obiectivism) is just another anti-ego spook

[Anonymous No.12430869]

>>12430864
That's why I said "actual liberty" which is freedom from spooks in my opinion. I haven't finished "The Ego and It's Own" but I've ran away with some of the thoughts. Of course, "freedom" has to be defined but in my opinion it means being subject to nothing but by choice

[Anonymous No.12430887]

>>12430869
>being subject to nothing but by choice
Right, and it also means that one can choose (but for the profit, libidal or economic) to affiliate with some political group, even communist one

[Anonymous No.12430896]

>>12430887
Yes, and fascist. Both ideologies do require being subject to something, though.

[Anonymous No.12430907]

>>12430629
Lf?

[Anonymous No.12430912]

>>12430281
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.12430917]

Private property is a spook.

[Anonymous No.12430926]

>>12430917
In so far as you "own" something by legal right. However, if you can express your claim on something, it's yours

[Anonymous No.12430929]

Also, Stirner's philosophy still has room for voluntary cooperation as a form of self-interested behavior. Rand's ramblings against "the masses" and scathing criticism of anything less than sociopathic single-minded selfishness bars that.

[Anonymous No.12430930]

>>12430854
>Love is a spook.
t. hasn't read Stirner

[Anonymous No.12430934]

>>12430926
>In so far as you "own" something by legal right
This is what most leftists refer to when they say "private property" (as opposed to "personal property").

[Anonymous No.12430935]

>>12430930
Nothing he says here says that love exists, only that he enjoys it and that it fits what he wants. He identifies the traditional concept of "love" as something which fits his ends, not that it exists or is "good" or anything like that

[Anonymous No.12430939]

>>12430934
I don't make the distinction

[Anonymous No.12430946]

>>12430926
>However, if you can express your claim on something, it's yours
How so? What changes in the object? If I inspect something you believe to be yours, will I be able to detect your ownership? What is it in the object that means it belongs to you?

[Anonymous No.12430947]

>>12430907
Laissez-faire

[Anonymous No.12430949]

>>12430935
Love exists as a desire to love and as a concept that describes that desire, and it doesn't exist in any other sense, is what he's saying, yes. How do you even want it to exist if not in that way?

[Anonymous No.12430958]

>>12430946
>What is it in the object that means it belongs to you?
Nothing, because ownership is a subjective category anyway. That it can be made into a social category accepted by your peers doesn't make it any less subjective, you just made others believe in your insanity, so to speak.

[Anonymous No.12430959]

>>12430958
...so it's a spook.

[Anonymous No.12430963]

>>12430959
Yes. Stirner's "property" is very far from what's usually called "private property", and latter he'd call, and probably explicitly calls, a spook.

[Anonymous No.12430965]

>>12430946
Physical exertion. Nothing at a quantum or atomic changes to say, "this is anon's." However, my ability to either convince it's mine or maintain its physical possession by any means (most likely through violence) makes it "someone's"
>>12430949
It exists as a concept. My idea of liberty is being subject only by choice, so if he's choosing to be subject to something ("love") by choice, he's as free as can be expected. There's a difference between "lust," "love," and actually conciousnessly deciding to seek out "love" so as to fit your ends. The first two make the person subject to biology, whereas the last the person has done his best to escape it, and seek it out as a form, not a feeling

[Anonymous No.12430973]

>>12430946
>>12430959
>If you steal from my whiskey stash, you'll get shot.
Explain what's spooky about the "I'll shoot ya" form of ownership.

[Anonymous No.12430974]

>>12430963
Stirner uses the word in both a literal and a metaphysical sense, when he declares everything to belong to him and that he only needs to attain power over it, he isn't calling for slavery or private ownership of property, he is expressing an egoist stance even through altruistic behavior (e.g he'd probably call his lover as his property too), he was basically into psychological egoism and postmodernism before these two were a thing

[Anonymous No.12430975]

>>12430965
I guess I should say, property is being able to actualize something's physical characteristics. For example, "owning land" means only that a person can do whatever they want with an arbitrary amount of land. We don't have that even in the USA since there are countless regulations about what can and can't be done with land. I suppose a truly free person would ignore those requirements, or else acknowledge them and follow them because their ends are to remain outside of prison.

[Anonymous No.12430977]

>>12430965
Yep, "lust" and "love" as you describe them, subjecting one to biology, would correspond to negroid phase in Stirner's terminology, whereas if you comprehend "love" as a concept but seek it as something separated from your choice to seek it it'd correspond to mongoloid phase. Only when you realise that nothing other than your desire to pursuit the concept of love gives it any worth you graduate to being a proper egoist.

[Anonymous No.12430980]

>>12430974
Indeed. It's frustrating how much people read him but don't get this.

[Anonymous No.12430981]

>>12430973
Nothing spooky about it, it just doesnt reflect the capitalist form of ownership.

[Anonymous No.12430984]

>>12430974
>he was basically into psychological egoism and postmodernism before these two were a thing
according to Lyotard postmodernism was a thing in the same time when modernism was a thing

[Anonymous No.12430985]

>>12430973
What makes you think its your stash?

[Anonymous No.12430986]

>>12430977
I can live with that.
So, step one: being subject to biology. Step two: acknowledging idealized love, but not seeking it by choice. Step three: seeking idealized love by choice.

[Anonymous No.12430993]

>>12430965
>However, my ability to either convince it's mine or maintain its physical possession by any means (most likely through violence) makes it "someone's"
And yet people complain about taxes. The government has the power to take your shit and punish you for disobedience. In every real sense what they take belongs to them and you have no claim on it

[Anonymous No.12431003]

>>12430986
Yes, the key distinction between steps two and three is realising that no desired object is bigger than your desire, and no desire is bigger than the one who desires, that is, you. That, again, does not advocates for egoism as it is usually understood, since Stirner pronounces that sacrificing oneself for whatever one things is right, be it country or saving the loved one or whatever, can be a perfectly egoistic deed, as long as you realise that nothing other than your choice compels you do do it, that there's no "duty" and no "obligation".

[Anonymous No.12431006]

>>12430993
The government doesn't exist in a vacuum, it needs us but we do not need it, its power comes from a docile and compliant populace, Stirner means how the laborer only has to see the fruit of his labor as his own for the state to collapse.

[Anonymous No.12431009]

>>12431006
>means
mentions*

[Anonymous No.12431025]

>>12430993
See my post here
>>12430975
I addressed this after reforming my position. But you're correct. Unless the property "owner" plans on securing their "property" by any means, they can't reasonably expect everyone to acknowledge their claim. That's why I have no sympathy for libertarians who complain about taxes, Commies who complain about "equality" or fascists who complain about jews. Each one has the means (their very existence and physical power) to try and achieve their independent ends (whatever ideological fantasy they hope to erect). I have my own sympathies, but until I personally act on them, they're, by my account, worthless.

[Anonymous No.12431026]

Because Stirner was an anti-ideologue.

Ayn Rand on the other hand is practically the definition of "wheels in your head".

Fact is that Ayn Rand and Stirner are polar opposites.

[Anonymous No.12431031]

>>12431003
Yes exactly. No other action can happen without the existence of the actor, and, as such, liberty is when actors complete actions by knowing every influence on their actions.

[Anonymous No.12431087]

Just read Stirner, you'll see why.

[Anonymous No.12431093]

>>12431087
To be honest though, I'm not sure why leftists like Stirner. Leftists are usually cloying collectivist faggots and Stirner was the opposite.

[Anonymous No.12431096]

1. Stirner is good and Rand is trash
2. No liberal even knows who Max Stirner is
3. Liberals are spook city. If they read Ego and its Own they'd call it sexist or some insult of the week.
4. Political hardline affiliation is a spook, you have failed the test.
My conclusion is that OP is a massive self-masturbatory pseud. Once again he is a faggot.

[Anonymous No.12431100]

>>12431093
I don't think they like him at all, OP is speaking bullshit.

[Anonymous No.12431116]

>>12431100
they like him, but they dont understand him at all
In my country some leftists anarchists are even saying that Stirner was >>>their guy<<<
https://czarnateoria.noblogs.org/general/dr-bones-stirner-nie-byl-kapitalista-ty-jebany-dzbanie-sciagawka/

[Anonymous No.12431129]

>>12431116
>leftists anarchists are even saying that Stirner was >>>their guy<<<
Imagine being this illiterate...Old Maxxy is spinning in his grave. I would have thought the massive anti-gommie bantz in EaiO were obvious even if you understood nothing else.
There are people who can actually read a book and not understand its most basic concepts?

[Anonymous No.12431131]

>>12431129
Yeah. It's pretty amazing. I realize I'm not the brightest guy, but when I see other people on my campus, I'm put to ease a little

[Anonymous No.12431145]

>>12431129
sometimes i think that sjw larpers outside America (or western world) are even more freaky than original ones, cuz larper want to be noticed and accepted, they actually create "hyperreal simulacrum" of american sjw.

btw the same goes with polish "alt-right" groups

[Anonymous No.12431152]

>>12431129
Leftist anarchist could also imply syndicalists, either way Stirner is mostly a meme and any political group that identifies with him shouldn't be taken seriously

[Anonymous No.12431159]

>>12431152
>meme
Why, because only a small group of people know about him? He's not popular enough?

[Anonymous No.12431162]

>>12431116
>leftists anarchists
There are no right-wing anarchists.

[Anonymous No.12431168]

>>12431162
That's not true. I tend to group an-caps as right wing, as well as primitivists. Any society where there is no centralized enforcement of peace is going to sway right wing eventually, because the strong will kill the weak

[Anonymous No.12431176]

>>12431162
there are even facist-anarchist, dont know why anarchism should be "guaranteed" for only one anti-state group. Isnt that intend itself very anti-anarchist? xD

[Anonymous No.12431185]

>>12431162
>he doesn't know about anarcho-monarchism
>he doesn't know what ancap is
>he thinks there's only a linear political scale and everything falls between A and B
Are there people who do that, go on the internet and discuss things they don't know anything about?

[Anonymous No.12431232]

>>12431096
Hey kids wanna see me btfo the quintessential phil chuuni?
Rand>Stirner as Rand's undergirding validation of egoism and individualism, the supremacy of reason, are what make these things objectively unassailable. Stirner's egoism has far less defenses and contradictions throughout as it practices what Rand termed "whim-worship" ad nauseum. Furthermore the Anticoncept>the Spook because the former is an actually useful (and historically revolutionary) tool for assessing bad ideational beleifs/philosophic logical fallacies and the latter is a barely useable whim-centric absurdity. Stirner pretty much amounts to an attempt to validate the self by bruteforcing whim-worship. Your impression might be Stirner represents a sort of "purer" Egoism than Rand but the fact that Rand delves deeper into Egoism's causal foundation means the opposite is true and the result is more powerfully validated.

[Anonymous No.12431239]

>>12431185
>anarcho-monarchism
That's sounds offensively retarded.

[Anonymous No.12431268]

>>12431026
>anti-ideologue
There is absolutely nothing more vacuous than this laughingstock shit.
Watch this.
>some ideology and specific opearants of ideology are good to some extent and in some respects and some ideology is bad to other extents and respects
It's literally that fucking easy. I have one word to introduce to anti-ideologyfags: contextuality. Zizek does this brainlet shit too. Fucking faggots the lot of you.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!/qKRybJPyoB No.12431278]

>>12431168
"an-caps" are liberals.

But let the anti-civ larp in the woods and we'll see who's the weak.

[Anonymous No.12431299]

>>12431232
>supremacy of reason
This is where Rand fails. Egoism goes hand in hand with reason but is by its very nature irrational, at the core of egoism lies Faith. Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith and Stirner's Egoist are one and the same, whereas Rand merely tries to retell Christianity for the hundredth time.

[Anonymous No.12431316]

>>12431006
The source of government power is surely irrelevant to the fact they have power and can assert their rights over yours with all the justification that brings. It doesn't matter how the hick acquired the shotgun with which he defends his still

[Anonymous No.12431323]

>>12431299
>Egoism goes hand in hand with reason but.. wait no not really.
>Rand, the person who lambasted mysticism, altruism, and faith as being the unadulteratedly evil curtailing of reason, =Christianity
This nigger.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!/qKRybJPyoB No.12431334]

>>12431316
Since there is no real justification, people just need to realize the fact of the matter. What are you even trying to say? Laws are real? Mass obedience breaths life into them, nothing more.

[Anonymous No.12431337]

>>12430271
Stirner's assertion of individual freedom is closer to syndicalism.

[Anonymous No.12431344]

Idk but Someone post the milk comic

[Anonymous No.12431351]

>>12431334
Complaining about taxes on the grounds that the government acquires power through means you don't approve of is moot.

[Anonymous No.12431361]

>>12431323
I think you got b8ed son.

[Anonymous No.12431375]

>>12431323
Rand is a classic sentimentalist though.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!/qKRybJPyoB No.12431396]

>>12431351
>Acknowledging taxes
A revolution, egoist or not, goes well beyond complaint.

>>12431361
Who can tell these days. /lit/ lets in all sorts of fools

[Anonymous No.12431401]

>>12431361
For his sake I hope I did.

[Anonymous No.12431419]

>>12431375
I swear to good if this sentamentalist word means: hurr person liked past thing a sad it didn't last...
"Sentamentalism" sounds like one of those pseud words someone just tacked -ism onto without warrant.

[Anonymous No.12431448]

>>12430271
The main difference is Rand believes in objective ethics, Stirner doesn't. Most "leftists" don't know of or don't approve of Stirners egoism. Rand is a more well known meme author in the real world so more people actually have some opinon on her.

[Anonymous No.12431462]

>>12430804
Based

[Anonymous No.12431467]

>>12431003
If you read Stirner deeply enough you get a feeling that he'd say that doing that is still a cucked thing to do. If what you say is true it doesn't change the material external results of anything and Max Stirner thereby becomes a superfluous but interesting analysis of how a person should make decisions. You make him into a spiritualist with an "Ego" that is substantiated in its external forms of action. Which seems counter to the point he was making about the self being a creative nothing, and that once a person realizes the self is nothing the world becomes "His" because as the books' implied Goethean ending says, 'all things are nothing to me.'

[Anonymous No.12431479]

>>12430271
>Right&Honorable's clearly hate Rand more than liberals if you look at market politics.
Leftists love what Stirner validates in their opinion on the self-appearance, their creative nothingness. This is the great displacement of contingency, the contrary as sincere criticism, a bracketable centre that is pure destructive capital replacing itself with the same entropic value of mystery. It is obfuscation as conservation. But the show is not to be explained as Ayn Rand does. Her books fail on meeting production targets needed to be meet in order to increase next years revenues so that a greater selection of talented individuals can blurbmingle daytoday softspoken newspaper humdrudgery. She couldn't conceptualize herself out of a wetpaper bag. Highsmith > Rand
---
Nagel > Stirner

[Anonymous No.12431494]

>>12431448
>propoganda/theft on the left vs genocide/slavery on the right
Methinks this pic is just a teensy bit biased to the left

[Anonymous No.12431504]

>>12431168
>>12431185
Ancaps aren't actual anarchists.

[Anonymous No.12431516]

>>12431479
>Her books fail on meeting production targets needed to be meet in order to increase next years revenues so that a greater selection of talented individuals can blurbmingle daytoday softspoken newspaper humdrudgery.
A. nice pointlessly big words fag
B. Rand considered it philosophically inappropriate to try to subsume an applied science into the philosophic system you are positing, which is why her metaphysics is so minimalist.

[Anonymous No.12431526]

>>12431504
Anarchist aren't actual anarchists either though

[Anonymous No.12431533]

>>12431494
I suggest you read some right-libertarian history on the War of Northern Aggression or the myth of the 6 million and the real genocide of whites by international Jewry.

[Anonymous No.12431534]

>>12431375
I swear to god if this sentamentalist word means: hurr person liked past thing and sad it didn't last...
"Sentamentalism" sounds like one of those pseud words someone just tacked -ism onto without warrant.

[Anonymous No.12431536]

>>12430804
Based

[Anonymous No.12431539]

>>12430804
Desab

[Anonymous No.12431543]

>>12430804
Based.

[Anonymous No.12431559]

>>12430804
DESAB

[Anonymous No.12431578]

>>12431516
>Rand fails to validate the same ideology she promotes because she closes herself off to the small-l liberal or communist or socialist readers she should want to reach but doesn't because she's stuck in her own fantasy world.

I think he was right, if a bit wordy. But Henry James > Highsmith, but she is still based as fuck.

[Anonymous No.12431587]

>>12431526
Incorrect. Mutualists are the one true anarchists.

[Anonymous No.12431862]

>>12431587
Eh I don't really care what you anaboos do as long as you btfo AnCaps and make them fuck off of my Capitalism.

[Anonymous No.12431956]

>>12430271
Ayn Rand was a capitalist. Stirner wasn’t. Not that hard to figure out.

[Anonymous No.12432006]

>>12430804
metadesab

[Anonymous No.12432212]

>>12430271
They haven't read either, just repeating what they've heard.

[Anonymous No.12432219]

>>12431956
Rand is in the same category as Sartre. And existentialism is not philosophical.

[Anonymous No.12432310]

>>12430930
>I love men
I knew it

[Anonymous No.12432321]

>>12430271
>>12430281
>leftists
Why don't you slit your wrists instead of using worthless terms like this. Get cancer and rot, illiterate burger

[Anonymous No.12433321]

>>12431862
Kek

[Anonymous No.12434593]

>>12431162
anarcha-democrats in the united states are generally pretty right wing outside of their current little kerfuffle with wignat 'movements'

a lot of them are outright anti-marxist apart from whatever third-hand grad school critical theory they carried away from tumblr