Why do leftists like stirner and pretend the impulse to right wing libertarianism is any different

nice nebulous rhetoric, bro

That's not rhetoric, that is the most sensible definition of the left and right that you can come up wiht.

IN any given instance when you have ttwo groups and people mostly agree one is left and one is right, youll find that the right one cares more about hierarchy and tradition.

What can be more spooked than the concept of private property. Even his UoE is not mutually exclusive from communism

But Left is more for critiquing and reforming said hierarchies, not ‘equality’ and ‘progress’

What if the left achieved its goals? Would it then turn against itself because it's the side that's against tradition?

Idk when i look at leftwing movements i see equality and progress.

Getting rid of the king, nobility, aristocracy, that's all equalizing. Democracy is obviously equalziing.
COmmunism is getting rid of economic hierarchy.
And these are all revolutionary

Monarchy is based usually on hereditary tradition, and is obviously hierarhcial. Fascism was a desire to return to hierarchy and tradition(with some leftwing revolutionary sentiments).

Even 'rightists' as bland as neocons are supporting hierarchy in the economic sphere, though their globalist alliance with neolibs is anti-traditional.

I think they are perfectly reasonable metrics, and not at all 'nebulous rhetoric' which implies im being dishonest or vague or trying to persuade.

being right wing, i am biased, and i dont believe hte Left ever can achieve its goals

in the simplest possible terms, i believe power forms a pyramid the same way that sand does if you pour it on the ground

Equalizing is a misleading term since in a democracy the majority has more power than the minority, so can’t be said to be fully equal. And communism is the obsolescence of the economic hierarchy brainlet.

A more precise usage should be critique and reform. Just as liberal critiqued monarchies and reformed to make capitalist crowned republics and republics, so that the marxists/anarchists critiques the new status quo and want to reform to something else

They become the new Right with the emergence of a new Left and the dialectics continue.

i have never read his books but can give an informed opinion: stirner would have labeled transgenders a spooke

>the obsolescence of the economic hierarchy
>fully equal.
Youre nitpicking and then calling me a brainlet. Obsolescence of hierarchy is equalizing you dumbass. Likewise going some ways towards equality is equalizing

Critique and reform are terms so vague as to be meaningless. The Third Reich was critique and reform

You're confusing the Left with liberals. Modern Western society functions in such a way that the elite are able to recruit from all ranks of society, whereas in feudal or monarchic societies with ingrained aristocracies transmitting membership by bloodline the pool of potential members of the elite is confined to a smaller set of individuals, given the necessity of aristocratic origin. Modernization necessitates the destruction of the old forms of authority that bound individuals to a society in the form of political allegiance to a lord or priesthood. Knights no longer serve a major military purpose. Modern knights are perfectly capable of being soldiers, but they aren't doing what the title would imply in feudal society. Nowadays, defense contractors are more important in warfare than a squire or a blacksmith could ever hope to be, because they fill more roles more effectively than premodern institutions that consigned some to perform manual labor or be cannon fodder on account of birth and some to officer status and possession of large landed holdings on account of high birth.
The point is that you're an idiot but you could manage to become a major decision-maker in Washington despite your stupidity and presumed inbred status, since we don't live in a pre-modern society. You can thank revolutionaries for your ability to become a member of a reactionary pro-Trump think tank.

>Obsolescence of hierarchy is equalizing you dumbass. Likewise going some ways towards equality is equalizing
There is a difference between equal measurements and lack of a measuring system. Try to keep it up

And Third Reich wasn’t reform in any sense of the word but replacing and reinforcing contemporary power structure. Sure both terms are vague but they are more precise than yours since they are actions leftists do.

>calls him a brainlet while thoughtlessly switching between descriptions of the behavior of liberals and communists, social democrats and anarchists
>other user is giving broad but concise analysis of the general overarching objectives of the right and left
>other user admits this is broad but at least preserves the basic utility of the terms without seeming to imply they're not open to admitting at the most detailed level of analysis these terms are largely meaningless
lol dunnin-kruger

>he doesn’t know Left and Right are relative terms and can or have changed throughout history
A jacobin from the past won’t have the same ideology as anarcho-syndicalist

You can meme all you like but communism reduces economic inequality. People still have goods, and these are more evenly distributed

no amount of semantic garbage is going to make this go away

The Third Reich turned a democracy into a Dictatorship. That is a reform. It also seriously weakend the aristocratic powers in Germany, so it wasnt jus the powers that be being reinforced. Hitler was looked down on for his middle class origins, and he also busted a bunch of industries up for various reasons.

Im going toa assume you just dont know anything and exit the conversation

They both seek the same essential principles as the root of all political organization: fraternity, liberty, equality. Social liberals are left leaning, classical liberals are centrists and tend to be rather indifferent to tradition, conservatives are right but really right leaning, traditionalists are right wing and often reactionaries since the concept makes almost no sense outside of left leaning reformism, fascists are far right just as communists are far left. Anarchists can be found anywhere, its not coherent at all, you're correct as it seems to loop back onto itself, regardless this is the closest we'll come to a proper "mapping" of something as incoherent and pseudoscientific as political science. No, a Jacobin would probably vehemently disagree with an anarcho-syndicalist and a social liberal from 1890 would abhor modern progressive values both for being economically conservative and socially outrageous, overly permissive. But, for the sake of the discussion coarse graining should be held to instead of autistic hairsplitting. What you're really seeing is that political science is fraudulent and these are nothing more than heuristics and rhetorical labels for the sake of propaganda. Congratulations.

You've explained equality, but what about progressive? How could you possibly say that one "side" values progress more than another when it completely relies on your definition of progress?

Historically you are simply stating definitions: right are the conservatives, who attempt to conserve what is already there, and left are the liberals, who attempt to change what is already there. Where progress fits into this I don't know, because of what I've asked above.

What about equality? If and when we ever exist in a truly "equal" society, will the left cease to exist?

private property is a spook

>Im going toa assume you just dont know anything and exit the conversation
Said the person who doesn’t even know what communism is.

And you can’t reform democracy to a dictatorship precisely coz dictatorship existed in the past, you effectively devolved it. And again none of the capitalistic industries were reformed, merely taken over.

Thanks?

>reform
re·form
/rəˈfôrm/Submit
verb
1.
make changes in (something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.

"Conservatives want to change this law; progressives want it to stay as it is."

Yes and it isn’t an improvement? If anything it is devolving it to a monarchy-lite

muh things can't get bettr
muh that's just how things are
muh narrowmindedness smothers muh thinking anything good can happen

i am sad because i feel right wing because i feel that society should be individual driven rather than class driven

but i have no choice but voting centerleft because any right/centerright party leans towards traditionalism, nationalism and individual rights repression lately ):

>left is for equality and progress

tell that to the soviet union and the current government of china

I want to personally decapitate every single underage retard that conflates spooks with social constructs

>Street orphans can't understand the concept of home.
There used to be a very large home for a large group of people. Be it a 'nation' or a 'country', unified by belief, destiny and identity.

You stopped believing in it and you want to rob others of it too. Others might not be as stupid as you, and won't fall for the same trick.

you are what happens when you spend all your xp points on sucking nigger cocks and forget to level int

What would Stirner make of Nick Land and right accelerationism I wonder

>mind so polluted by garbage like genre fiction, television, and videogames he can only think in those terms
literally the male equivalent of harry potter quoting roasties, m8

A man sleeping in the streets certainly doesn’t feel “at home”, you fucking retard.

the current government of chine is not left wing though

>stirner
>left
>right
>libertarianism
its almost like you dont understand stirner

Drop tradition and progress. Fascism falls on the far right due to its hierarchical nature not tradition.

>hierarchy
>tradition
>equality
>progress

Delete gif
2spooky

This thread is way too spooky to be anything but off topic politics

My dude, read back what you just wrote to yourself slowly.

Attached: 1540152142919.jpg (634x633, 33K)

the USSR? I think utopia is very difficult to achieve

"You are more than a human being, therefore you are also a human being; you are more than a male, but you are also a male; but humanity and masculinity do not express you exhaustively, and you can therefore be indifferent to everything that is held up to you as ‘true humanity’ or ‘true masculinity.’”

your value judgments are irrelevant. The Nazis clearly saw it as a positive reform

YOu view history as linear progress, which means anything that resemvles the past has to be devolution. This is like saying that Whales devolved when they went back to the water

Transgenderism is part of identity politics, identity politics is the most pertinent contemporary example of spooks. Worse yet, they are acultural, ahistorical, acausal.

>China
>left wing

Brainlet confirmed

Tell me, which side started the War on Drugs, the War on Terror and supports fighting in Syria and Yemen? Is selling weapons to the Saudis and Somalia as well as incentivsing the ultra rich to keep the working class down? I forgot

Attached: tumblr_lkoqs2ArfX1qcblado1_400.jpg (400x534, 51K)

>referring to My Unique with a fixed abstract term such as "leftist"

You cannot define my Unique, it is the Creative Nothing, constantly changing to better ascend itself and further My Cause.

To lump me in with your pathetic ideologies that have no use to me and are not of my concern is the pinnacle of arrogance and ignorance.

Don't talk to Me, My Ego or My Own ever again you spooky fuck

Attached: 1460219351916.jpg (960x720, 88K)

overly-politicized individuals are mentally ill in all cases, no exceptions. i've done the multivariate analyses

im fucking dying (not that you'd care) holy shit

This Unique gets it

Attached: tumblr_owem38sTra1vy1x6to1_400.jpg (400x385, 42K)

It is likely that he would have labeled all gender as spooks, I have read his books, he believes that each Unique is a Creative Nothing that can form itself as it wishes, Gender, Race, Nationality. All are fixed abstractions that try to tether the Unique to something, a fixed definition.

If any of your "baggage" (terms you use to describe my Unique) you try to pin on me comes with unchanging definitions, it's spooky shit user.

Attached: Leftypol+shibe+bgr+josa+im+_0a3096263ee03722435948cbce355371.jpg (1000x2441, 325K)

nICE

Attached: fuck ya.jpg (960x720, 66K)

To clarify, I am meaning any connective spooks which come with your term, for example, I am an Australian, I come from a land that is referred to as "Australia", I am not however any stereotype or of Australian culture or someone who has certain values that are associated with "Australia"

Generalisation of a person's values or beliefs because "they belong to group X" is defining my Unique with fixed abstraction and therefore, spooky

Basically, you can make generalisations about groups, but don't make them about me because you think I'm part of that group, I am an individual and not a group abstraction.

Attached: tumblr_ov9s0nrGfX1qhvndno1_400.png (352x600, 74K)

Yeah, I read way too much Stirner

Attached: 1496880863733.jpg (599x564, 91K)

Stirner? Is that you?

Of course I'm not Stirner, Stirners been dead for over one hundred years, there's no way any Unique could live that long...

STIRNER! WE GOT STIRNER HERE!

Attached: 1294848649459.jpg (337x276, 19K)

>Basically, you can make generalisations about groups, but don't make them about me because you think I'm part of that group, I am an individual and not a group abstraction.
The great thing about Stirnerism is that this concept can be universalized and every individual recognized qua Unique, thanks to the Union of Egoists. The concept literally scares tenured professors of analytic political philosophy.

>right wing libertarianism
Worships free market.
>stirner
Worships nothing.

Left-wingers and right libertarians share some common ground, and a common goal of "what's the best for everyone?" They're actually able to talk to each other and debate based on shared premises. The modern pseudo-fascist right winger only thinks "what's the best for me?" and in terms of "winning," in which reason is only a tool for a political goal, to be discarded when it isn't useful.

>Stirner
Worships the Creative Nothing*

I.E. himself
What else is there in this universe but your own experience, without it, the world would be nothing to you, you are beyond all things, all dogmas, all laws, all spooks.

What else is there to serve and revere as the most sacred other than yourself, the Unique? Nothing, not a single iota of matter, thought or idea should be deserving as praise more than the Unique, the Unique ascend beyond any other possible experience that any church or state could possibly hope to offer, heaven, peace, wealth, all these concepts disintegrated before Your Cause, when you truly worship yourself and attain a level of self interest of an Egoist, you become all powerful before any of these spooks.

I told you, I'm not Stirner, Stirner has been dead for over one hundred years, no-one can live that long, shut up

Attached: 1428801130997.jpg (998x766, 69K)

Stirner, stop pretending to be dead, lies are a spook

Fuck off spook

Attached: 1407703457864.png (500x500, 27K)

where do i start with stirner? as in, who should i read before him

where do people get this idea that libertarianism = neoliberalism? you get the same results in office from both, but the ideologies are not coherent or interchangeable you idiots. One's about raping and the others about being raped. Look it up.

Attached: AmericanCulturalImperialism.jpg (2048x1370, 177K)

It's a spectrum!

Nietzsche, Rand, Camus perhaps, no-one is really like him, maybe Martin Heidegger

the (you) is not possible without Jow Forums just as language does not exist without multiple speakers and this fact then creates the necessity of more than person to create the notion of self; and furriether on we notice the ego is situated in a world that radicalizes choices in environmental degredation processes such that (you)'s discordanant rather than transfix the host environment for the duration of the selfsuck as Stirner requires in doing what is a ship of thisyis composed of godgiven dildoes and magic wands and other fertility devices meant to belay to the womb (you), ie. guya, that to cut that field of the wheat would be a hairdresser trimming what is meant to be parted, the land reflecting me myself and I an echolalia of a waste disposal site positioned on top of a spruce ridge, wind howls and crows caw mine, all mine property singing me as I channel Joseph's ministry and negate the latenight talkshow voice that bubbles like a likeness of which only my uniqueness conceals - though, really, my rhetoric conceals better due to its history and position in society as a desider to the ligimacy of some such facts about my position and that sound that pops from my bottom twice, two horns blasts, a kingdom of I this ship and these souls, these sailors me, my life owing to them and this god damn sea I sit atop, waiting, wondering, will I homeward finally be settled and abstracted in loving arms of nothing blanker than sleep and zeros and this thought of existence come from what is here drifting, uncut from her, searching back to landside for a moment of belonging, I once was not so much as that, a growth in nebulus twists that conspired to break the strings of fate to hang myself the hangman on a sky-gallows.

Attached: ego.jpg (600x889, 104K)

Careful kid, you almost called him a NPC.

this

I love this for Some reason.

Maybe one day I'll understand it the way you intended.

Screw it, why not just tell me what you want to say, let me know what you intended without metaphors

What's everyone's take on this?

>conservative vs liberal is the left right divide

Stirnerites tend to loathe the left just as much as the fash, m8y. What planet are you on?

Here, have a Stirner-related chart.

Attached: Post-Leftism.jpg (1913x2880, 2.36M)

Stirner. Like Bakunin, but for stupid folks.

Attached: qwm2s7fcwoox.jpg (1000x691, 131K)

This

Attached: B4A00E38-02F2-41CF-AE53-500C78EE4B02.png (820x460, 500K)

"Spoons" are the epitome of "rules for thee but not for me"
Kids think they're edgy until someone uses the same logic against them

Great day for spooky stories huh bois?

Attached: Stirnerfu.jpg (613x771, 49K)

Hey retard, it has nothing to do with syndicalism.

muh feed ur ego

>Surrender your capital and land
> Be aid the same as everyone else
>No money so everything must be obtained from a company store
>Some blue haired bitch telling me how to behave
>Open borders

>This is somehow in my rational self-interest.
Yep. Stirner is totally compatible with anarcho-communism.

Anarcho-syndicalism -despite having the word "syndicate" on it - it is not about having a bunch of worker unions, it is a political euphemism for "OG Libertarians".

Attached: TheMoreYouKnow.jpg (1280x720, 42K)