Moderator: Only_Humean
" but fascism is guaranteed to produce the most fertile soil out of which the best of these grow. "
so he isn't a fascist. well ain't that some shit. what a disappointment.
look man you need to get in there and edit that shit.
OG (original guide) wrote:you are an inhuman idiot deserving of utter contempt.
"OG (original guide) wrote:
you are an inhuman idiot deserving of utter contempt.
bro. that is so weird. i actually am an idiot (in the original greek root meaning of 'i make my own'). but i'm no ordinary idiot. not yet anyway. i'm aspiring to be but i have to pass through several stages first before i get there. at the moment i'm just a swaggering idiot. here, check it out.
that's so weird you knew, though. we're connected, dude. i'm telling you.
btw, that most recent thread you created is a duplicate of the 'entartung' thread."
OG (original guide) wrote:It is degeneration is the fullest sense of Max Stirner.
let me give you an example of a system which stopping short of that final marxist limit stands in a state of ethical irresolvability. capitalism.by virtue of its principles, it cannot be ethical in the sense that it purports to be. that is to say, it cannot stand by its own tenants and still be able to function; it requires that a number of people fail at realizing its greatest privilege so that a number of others can realize it (at the expense of those others). in this way, the classes it creates cannot share any ethical solidarity and will forever have conflicting interests. here is the collapse of principle and the direct, unavoidable line to stirner; if this particular abstraction of the 'state' cannot sustain itself through the ethical cooperation of individuals who share the same interests, it is for all intent and purposes nullified.if the social contract is nullified, there is no longer a collectivity, but a war between two classes; the bourgeois and proletariat. and if this is the case (and it is), one cannot avoid the conclusion of stirner. one either remains a confused fool somewhere in the middle, or one becomes a stirnerite or a marxist. other 'political' philosophers are irrelevant filler materials that sit somewhere on this line between stirner and marx. any possible political philosophy approaches one of the other, inevitably.
“it requires that a number of people fail at realizing its greatest privilege so that a number of others can realize it”
“by virtue of its principles, it cannot be ethical in the sense that it purports to be”
“if the social contract is nullified, there is no longer a collectivity”
OG (original guide) wrote:This position is unclear
OG (original guide) wrote:This doesn't exclude general improvement. When the country is electrified, or when plumbing becomes generally available, in the end, even the poorest benefit.
OG (original guide) wrote:Capitalism never promised “freedom for” all things for all people. Rather, its principle was “freedom from” paternalist or royal interference. For instance, there was a law forbidding the rich from selling their estates (disposition, or right to use, but not to “alienate” property) in England before laissez-faire.
That those with talent in commerce will be free to benefit from those favoured qualities.
"'fraid that's the nature of all philosophical text."
OG (original guide) wrote:Goodbye idiot scientism religious freak rhetoric fatuous websight of dreck waste of time!
or so it appeared. certainly the transition from feudalism to mercantile capitalism marked a break from that paternalism characterized as the authority of the aristocratic class, but it took an alternative form of that same tyranny shortly thereafter. instead of the common man being a slave to the demands of his lord, he became a slave to the demands of his necessity to labor for a wage, or be ostracized, penalized, or even exiled from the land on which he dwelled. so then while capitalism certainly 'made no promises', it still transformed a previous system of tyranny into another, new form, and therefore did not avoid the essential problem it's origins were thought to be a solution for; the problem of property relations.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]