Hello, I'm HelloThere314, and this is my self insert.
I take influence from many schools of thought across philosophy and political theory. The schools that have influenced me the most are Post-Hegelianism,
Marxism,
Phenomenology,
Existentialism,
Post-Structuralism, and
Contemporary Anarchism
My ideology or philosophy takes an anti-foundationalist approach to both philosophy and politics, starting from Stirner's notions of the unique. I take a generally existentialist toward the self informed by Stirner's notion of the creative nothing, analyzing it from the perspective of phenomenology. This self creates concepts to separate and explain the world; my view of this concept creation comes primarily from Stirner, Deleuze, and Guattari. These concepts create conceptual spaces, creating totalizing phenomena such as the ideas of ideological apparatuses, spectacle, hyperreality, etc. All of these conceptual spaces may not necessarily be accurate in their descriptions, but all contribute the idea of reality mediated by concepts. Along with this I take the Stirnerite view of conscious egoism, which is not an egotism that places the self first, but rather a view of causes without foundations, as the self is not a readily defined entity but rather one that is constantly changing and has no fundamental essence. This egoism leads me to an insurrectionary view of politics informed by movements such as post-leftism, post-anarchism, and communization. The mode of organization I propose is the union of egoists, which is a flexible mode of organization that can be created and disbanded by those within it and involves all involved contributing towards common interests.
Beliefs
My stuff can be found on substack. Current articles are listed here:
Hyperreality and Spectacle: The Nature of Mediation and Fetishization
Stirner's New Critics Part One: Introduction
Stirner's New Critics Part Two: The Marxist Critiques of Stirner
Stirner's New Critics Part Three: The Existentialist Critiques of Stirner
Stirner's New Critics Part Four: The Post-Structuralist Critiques of Stirner
Post-Communism Part One: Introduction
The Unique and The Creative Nothing: Starting With No Foundations
Conceptual Space and Metaphysics: On The Nature of The Concept
Self Affirmation and The Subject: Subjectivity Without Subjects
Immanence and Transcendence: Reflections on The Plane of Immanence
Post-Communism Part Two: The Post-Anarchist Approach to Power
Relations
All of this is based on ideology, not personality. I will be considering how well thought out the ideas are along with how much I agree with them
S-Tier
HelloThere314ism (
/
/
) - I completely agree with myself, shocker.
A-Tier
Ultroneism (
/
/
) - Despite our differences and past disagreements and feuds, I find your thought to be deeply fascinating and I agree with a good bit of it. Congrats on your phd btw, that's awesome!
Arthurwp Thought (
/
/
) - We're both Deleuzian communists and we agree on many things. I disagree predominantly on how you interpret deterritorialization and the role of communism in your thought, along with of course our interpretation of Stirner.
Glorified Communism (
/
/
) - Your ideas on the solar economy are fascinating and I largely agree with them. Aycee and you have inspired me to look more into Battaile. Along with this we are both communizers and stirnerites. However many elements of your thought I find too rooted in negation and your notion of communism as religion and the realization of the myth and whatnot are simply sacred causes and idols. Also I find that you misunderstand post-anarchism.
Ego-Progressivism (
/
/
) - We hold many similar thoughts on politics and life and I enjoy our conversations a lot. However I do find that your notion of the queer simply recreates the notion of a political subject.
Puri Thought (
/
/
) - I like your ideas a lot but you tend to systematize and get stuck at times in heaven building and essentialism.
Post-Communization (
/
/
) - A fellow admirer of Tiqqun and Foucault, we are very similar. I think your attempt to synthesize the materialist conception of history in Marx and the analysis of history in Foucault are incompatible in their original forms, though if one embraced a more post-Marxist analysis they would be compatible.
Jefbol Thought (
/
/
) - Not much on your page currently, but I love this shift you're going through. An admirer of Nietzshce, Deleuze, and the Autonomists will always be appreciated.
B-Tier
Inneralism (
/
/
) - Fellow Stirnerite and fan of Kafka. Your understanding of Stirner isn't the most developed and I dislike your economic conclusions. A panarchy where one chooses what system to dominate them may seem to be free association, but since it cannot come in the form of unions of egoists it is just as alienating.
Cannabis Anarchy (
/
/
) - Fellow contemporary anarchist but I have a lot of disagreements. Mutualism in any form reproduces the commodity form and thus capital accumulation. The idea of post-civ is untenable and utopian and would lead to billions dead. Productivity has to continue but freely, outside of the domain of work. I also really dislike your notion of the demurge and the notion of a golden age.
Post-Left Ego-Nihilism (
/
/
) - Another person I have many agreements yet many disagreements. I rather dislike anarcho-nihilism and its notion of pure negation, wich falls to Camus and Beuavoir's critique of negation as a cause in itself, a sacred one at that. You question why I am a communist. I am one due to it being the movement to abolish the current state of things, I live this movement through insurrectionary and communization activity. Fellow Stirnerite though.
C-Tier
Neo-Rocksism (
/
/
) - Classical anarchist with good intentions. Very meh but very nice person.
Bruhman Thought (
/
/
) -
Craniocommunization (
/
/
) -
Aristocratic Futurism (
/
/
) -
Neo-Murba (
/
/
) -
D-Tier
Chaotic Communism -
Yoda8soup Thought -
Neo-Airisuism -
Neo-Atronism -
Existentialist Geomarket Anarchism -
Heredism -
Great British New Left -
Duck-Citizen -
Astrodiscordianism -
Ultra-Enlightenment -
Neo-Optimateism -
F-Tier
BrainRustism -
Owfism -
ChronicLiberalism -
Bingusian System -
Pantheonism -
Brazilian Liberalism -
Expanded Technocratic Socialism -
Z-Tier
Autocrateism -
Iberian Communism -
Neo-Kiraism -
Aurelianism -
Reginald thought -
Triadism -
Lanceism -
Domestic Church -
Neo-Glencoeism -
Super-Market-Capitalism -
Rigby Thought -
Theory
Theory I Plan To Read
The Accumulation of Capital
The Conquest of Bread
The World of Perception
Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy
Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre
Sketch For a Theory of Emotions
Death
Identity and Difference
The German Ideology
The Phenomenology of Spirit
Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism
Communization and Its Disconnects
Eclipse and Reemergence of the Communist Movement
This is Not a Program
The History of Sexuality Volume Two
The History of Sexuality Volume Three
The History of Sexuality Volume Four
The Birth of the Clinic
Madness and Civilization
The Order of Things
Symbolic Exchange and Death
Forget Foucault
On The Reproduction of Capitalism
For Marx
On The Genealogy of Morals
Against Method
Cartesian Meditations
Critique of the Gotha Program
Socialism Utopian and Scientific
Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution
From Crisis to Communization
Anti-Semite and Jew
On the Poverty of Student Life
Totality and Infinity
Max Stirner's Dialectical Egoism
Eumeswil
Of Grammatology
Writing and Difference
Nietzsche and Philosophy
Gilles Deleuze
The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism
From Bakunin to Lacan
After Post-Anarchism
The Burnout Society
Psychopolitics
Communists Like Us
Gender Trouble
Undoing Gender
Empire
Autonomia
Marx Beyond Marx
Marx in Movement
Workers and Capital
Less Than Nothing
Libidinal Economy
The Postmodern Condition
The Accursed Share Volume One
The Accursed Share Volume Two
The Accursed Share Volume Three
The Dialectic of Enlightenment
Eros and Civilization
The Anti-Oedipus Papers
Max Stirner’s Egoism and Nihilism
Chaosmosis
Heraclitus
The Coming Community
Homo Sacer
State Of Exception
Molecular Revolution
Ethics
Spinoza
Kafka
The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis
Écrits
Organs Without Bodies
Fatal Strategies
The Agony of Power
Writings 1997-2003
The Birth of Biopolitics
Reading Capital Politically
Desert Islands
Lines of Flight
Post-Modern Anarchism
Elements of the Philosophy of Right
K-Punk
On the Line
The Logic of Sense
Ecce Homo
The Will to Power
The Holy Family
Society Must Be Defended
The Consumer Society
For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign
Foucault by Gilles Deleuze
Power and Politics in Poststructuralist Thought
Critique of Pure Reason
Critique of Practical Reason
Critique of the Power of Judgment
Theory I Am Reading
Theory I Have Read
Abdullah Öcalan
Albert Camus
The Stranger
The Plague
The Fall
The First Man
The Myth of Sisyphus
The Rebel
Resistance, Rebellion, And Death
Neither Victims Nor Executioners
Create Dangerously
Albert Einstein
Aldous Huxley
Alfredo Bonanno
After Marx, Autonomy
Armed Joy
Hegel, Introductive Note
Theory of the Individual: Stirner’s Savage Thought
On Marx and Engels’ Non-Critique of Stirner
Let’s Destroy Work, Let’s Destroy The Economy
Allan Antliff
Alyson Escalante
Amadeo Bordiga
The Human Species And The Earths Crust
Letter To Korsch
The Solution of Bukharin
Party And Class
The Democratic Principle
Dialogue With Stalin
Andrew Culp
Accelerationism And The Need for Speed
Dark Deleuze
Insurrectionary Foucault
The Disaster Of Revolution
Giving Shape To Painful Things
Philosophy, Science, And Virtual Communism
The State, Concept Not Object
A Method To The Madness
Andrew Koch
Post-Structuralism And The Epistemological Basis of Anarchism
Max Stirner: The Last Hegelian Or The First Poststructuralist?
Anonymous
An-ok Ta Chai
Anselme Bellegarrigue
Anton Pannekoek
APS
Aristotle
Arthur Schopenhauer
Bào Jìngyán
Benjamin R. Tucker
Bobby Whittenberg-James
Bob Black
Anarchy After Leftism
The Abolition Of Work
Debunking Democracy
Imputationism
My Preferred Gender Pronoun Is Negation
Anarchist Response To “An Anarchist Response to Crime”
Notes On “Post-Left Anarchism”
Preface To The Right to be Greedy By “For Ourselves”
Technophilia, An Infantile Disorder
Bruno Astarian
Carlo Cafiero
The Invisible Commite
Constitutional Convention
Council
Christina Howells
Daniah Alsaleh
Daniel Guérin
David Graeber
David Jopling
Dr. Bones
D. Z. Rowan
A Brief Description Of Egoist Communism
On The Self
The Case For Amorality
Tips for Reading Stirner
Criticism
On The Appearance Of Radical Movements
Ultra Left International
Communization For People In A Hurry
Why Collapse Won’t Save Us
Reformist Rhetoric And Classism
Communism As A Movement
Ebeggin
Edgar Bauer
Emma Goldman
Endnotes
Enzo Martucci
Eric Fleischmann
Errico Maletesta
Evan Jack
For Ourselves!
Franz Kafka
The Trial
Conversation With The Supplicant
Meditation
The Judgment
The Metamorphosis
A Country Doctor
In The Penal Colony
A Hunger Artist
Friedrich Engels
Friedrich Nietzsche
Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Beyond Good And Evil
Twilight Of The Idols
The Antichrist
The Challenge of Every Great Philosophy
The Gay Science
On Truth And Lies In A Nonmoral Sense
Félix Guattari
Filippo Marinetti
Fire
Fredy Perlman
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Georg Hegel
Georges Palante
George Orwell
Gilles Deleuze
Difference And Repetition
Postscript On The Societies Of Control
Theory Of Multiplicities In Bergson
What Is A Creative Act
Bartleby Or The Formula
Gilles Deleuze And Antonio Negri
Gilles Deleuze And Félix Guattari
Gilles Dauvé
When Insurrections Die
Human, All Too Human?
The A To Z Of Communization
Critique Of The Situationist International
Capital And The State
Gilles Dauvé And Karl Nesic
Giorgio Agamben
Gustav Landauer
Guy Debord
Society Of The Spectacle
Comments On The Society Of The Spectacle
Report On The Construction Of Situations
User’s Guide to Détournement
Hakim Bey
Hazel Barnes
Henry David Thoreau
Henry George
Heraculitus
Herbert Marcuse
Herbert Read
Herbert Wells
Herman Melville
Homer
Howard Phillips Lovecraft
Ian Wright
ICC
ICP
ICT
Jacob Blumenfeld
Jacques Camatte
Jacques Derrid
James L. Walker
Jan D. Matthews
Jason Adams
Jason McQuinn
Critical Self-Theory
A Brief History Of Theory
Max Stirner: The Anarchist Every Ideologist Loves To Hate
Clarifying The Unique And Its Self-Creation
Raoul Vaneigem: The Other Situationist
Post-Left Anarchy
J.D. Moyer
Jean Baudrillard
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Jean-Paul Sartre
The Transcendence Of The Ego
Being And Nothingness
No Exit
Existentialism Is A Humanism
The Respectable Prostitute
Search For A Method
Critique Of Dialectical Reason
What Is Subjectivity?
Illegalism And Ultra-Leftism
Dirty Hands
The Flies
Jean-Pierre Voyer
Reich: How To Use
Non-Well-Founded Set Theory: Putting An End To Marx's Reductionism
The Economy is Only an Ideology in Marx’s Sense
My Goal In Life
What I Am Satisfied With
There Is No Society of The Spectacle
The Parthian Shot
John Henry Mackay
John Moore
John Beverly Robinson
John Stuart Mill
John Zerzan
Jonas Ceika
Joseph Parampathu
Josiah Warren
Juliette Simont
Julius Martov
Kämpa Tillsammans!
Karl Marx
Wage Labour And Capital
Value Price And Profit
Capital
Conspectus Of Bakunin's Statism And Anarchy
Theses On Feuerbach
Karl Marx And Friedrich Engels
Keiji Nishitani
Kim Müller
Kristian Lamprecht
A Critique of Capitalism and other Established Systems: An Introduction To Stirnerite Marxism
Sexual Egoism: A Critique Of Labels
Larry Law
Lao Tzu
Lewis Call
Leo Fretz
Ludwig Feuerbach
Mac Intosh
Mao Zedong
Marcel
Mark Fisher
Marilisa Fiorina
Martin Heidegger
Massimo Passamani
Matt Colquhoun
Matty Thomas
Max Baginski
Max Nettlau
Max Stirner
The Unique And Its Property
Stirner's Critics
The False Principle Of Our Education
Philosophical Reactionaries
Art And Religion
You Only Have The Courage To Be Destructive
Michel Foucault
Discipline And Punish
The History of Sexuality
The Subject and Power
Preface To Anti-Oedipus
The Utopian Body
Michel Foucault And Gilles Deleuze
Miguel De Unamuno
Mikal Jakubal
Mikhail Bakunin
Monsieur Dupont
Murray Bookchin
Nick Land
Nikolai Bukharin
Noam Chomsky
Nyx Land
Gender Acceleration: A Blackpaper
Hello From The Wired
Cyber Nihilism Recap
Notes On Cyber Nihilism
Blog Without Organs
Reflections On Violence
The Sovereign Citizen
Trans Nihilism
Oscar Wilde
Otto Rühle
The Revolution Is Not A Party Affair
Moscow And Ourselves
From The Bourgeois To The Proletarian Revolution
The Psyche Of The Proletarian Child
Ōsugi Sakae
Paul Mattick
Peter Caws
Peter Vallentyne
Peter Kropotkin
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Pierre Verstraeten
Plato
Ralph Miliband
Raoul Vaneigem
Renzo Connors
Renzo Novotare
Rhiannon Goldthorpe
Robert Cumming
Roland Barthes
Ronald Aronson
Rosa Luxembourg
Reform Or Revolution
Leninism Or Marxism?
The Mass Strike
The Russian Revolution
Organizational Questions Of The Russian Social Democracy
Sadie Plant
Sarah Bakewell
Saul Newman
The Politics of Post-Anarchism
Post-Anarchism
War On The State
Insurrection or Revolution?
Toward A Post-Kantian Freedom
Specters Of Stirner
Empiricism, Pluralism And Politics
Anarchism And Psychoanalysis
Interrogating the Master
Post-Anarchism And Radical Politics Today
Spectres Of Freedom In Stirner And Foucault
Derrida’s Deconstruction Of Authority
Anarchism, Marxism, And The Bonapartist State
Anarchism And The Politics Of Ressentiment
Politics Of The Ego
Post-Anarchism And Space
Slavoj Žižek
Sidney E. Parker
Simone De Beauvoir
The Second Sex
Introduction To An Ethics Of Ambiguity
The Ethics Of Ambiguity
Pyrrhus And Cineas
Analysis Of Claud Bernard’s Introduction To The Study Of Experimental Medicine
A Review Of The Phenomenology Of Perception By Maurice Metleau-Ponty
Existentialism And Popular Wisdom
Jean-Paul Sartre
An Eye For An Eye
Literature And Metaphysics
Moral Idealism And Political Idealism
An Existentialist Look At Americans
Simon Springler
Stephan Günzel
Strangers In a Tangled Wilderness
Post-Civ! A Brief Philosophical and Political Introduction to the Concept of Post-civilization
Post-Civ! A Deeper Exploration
Søren Kierkegaard
Svein Olav Nyberg
Theodor Adorno
Théorie Communiste
Normative History And The Communist Essence Of The Proletariat
Much Ado About Nothing
Théorie Communiste
Thomas Flynn
Thomas Nagel
Tiqqun
The Problem Of The Head
What Is Critical Metaphysics?
Silence And Beyond
Theses On The Imaginary Party
A Critical Metaphysics Could Emerge
The Great Game Of Civil War
The Cybernetic Hypothesis
Preliminaries To Any Struggle Against Prisons
How It Is To Be Done
Todd May
Vikky Storm and Eme Flores
Vladimir Lenin
What Is To Be Done?
The Three Sources And Three Component Parts of Marxism
The Tasks of the Proletariat In The Present Revolution
Wildcat
William Schmack
William Shakespeare
Wolfi Landstreicher
Strangers In An Alien World
The Anarchist As Outlaw
Why I Am Not a Communist
Egoism Vs. Modernity
A Critique Not A Program
User Theory Recomendations
Use this template: HelloThere314 -
The Unique And Its Property
Duck-Citizen -
Individualism and Economic Order




- -
Minimum Viable Theology
Neo-Optimateism -
Might is Right
-
The Federalist Papers
puri -
Call
puri -
The Unknown Revolution
Temujin Lee -
The Fundamental Truth
My Theory Recomendations
While I don't agree with everything here, all of these texts significantly influenced my thought.
Fragments
The Essence Of Christianity
The Unique And Its Property
Stirner's Critics
Art And Religion
Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Beyond Good And Evil
Twilight Of The Idols
The Antichrist
The Gay Science
Either Or
The Myth of Sisyphus
The Rebel
The Second Sex
The Ethics Of Ambiguity
What Is Existentialism?
Being And Nothingness
Existentialism Is A Humanism
The Transcendence Of The Ego
Critique Of Dialectical Reason
Being And Time
The Pleasure Of The Text
The Death Of The Author
Specters Of Marx
The System Of Objects
Simulacra And Simulation
Discipline And Punish
The Subject and Power
Capitalism And Schizophrenia
What Is Philosophy?
Difference And Repetition
Dark Deleuze
Underground Philosophy
The Politics of Postanarchism
Postanarchism
Anarchy After Leftism
The Right To Be Greedy
Armed Joy
The Coming Insurrection
To Our Friends
The Cybernetic Hypothesis
Everything Must Go!
Endnotes
The Revolution Of Everyday Life
Society Of The Spectacle
Comments On The Society Of The Spectacle
Spectacular Times
It's Crazy How Many Things Don't Exist
Capitalist Realism
The State In Capitalist Society
One Dimensional Man
Psychoanalysis, Politics, And Utopia
Negative Dialectics
Wage Labour And Capital
Value Price And Profit
Capital
Comments
HelloThere314 - Comment if you want to discuss or if you want to be added. I will be deleting old comments.
Weedman - I don't mind you with updating relations, but I am here to explain a few things. I am no longer mutualist, I am practically a communist now, in anarchist communization way, and I reject commodities and capital accumulation, because I wish to destroy money. I believe that communist "gift economics" are final form of markets, without limits like money, banks, value theory, commodities etc. I understand post-civ in a different way, I don't inherently oppose production, I oppose industry, that in future may be replaced by automation at small scale and nanofactories, plus i wish to abolish agriculture for permaculture. Communization in my notion is not only destruction of capital but of civilization entirely, because both are interconnected and ultimately the same. When it comes to "billions dead", it may not be done by humans directly, but by effects of human actions (climate change catastrophes, nuclear destruction, leaked biological weapons like covid but stronger, deficiencies related to overusing natural resources, eventually technological singularity leading to Terminator movie scenario). I don't wish to abolish all kinds of work done by men. And finally, I guess I am leaving Gnosticism and the notion of demiurge as some kind of wicked deity tyrannizing humanity, but rather metaphorical term describing civilization, capital and superego. And Golden Age of course is somewhat related to metaphysical theories of cyclical time, but essentially it means anarchy, true communism, Rousseau state of nature, uncivilized world but with technology, science and other good and useful parts of what development has done. If you have questions or you are curious, ask me on discord.
Meowxism - why do you rank me lower than iberian communism if i may even though we are sorta similar in some respects?
HelloThere314 - Sorry I put her in the wrong spot. I put both of you so low because I have a strong distaste for Stalinism and what he did in the USSR, along with his utter butchery towards Marx theoretically. I still respect both of ya'll's knowledge however.
- Post-Left Ego-Nihilism - I feel strong dislike towards any kind of communism, but still very based as you are an Egoist. Could you add me into relations and recommend some books you like?
HelloThere314 - Added you, reading recommendations are in the recommendations section on my page.
- Ibelulo - When I expressed my thoughts to you before, you mistakenly believe that some of my words I want to express communism and give your own views. Of course, I think your view of communism is right. I just think that you misunderstand what I want to express. At that time, what I explained was more human nature, but now I think human nature is too accurate, so I am too accurate, so I plan to tell you what I want to express at the time. What I wanted to express at the time was my view of morality and altruism. Of course, whether it was before or now, I had a criticism and questioning attitude towards morality and altruism, but the angle was different. In the past, I have begun to think about why we must be a good person, because when I think more about morality and altruism, the more I can see contradictions and hypocrisy in it. A very simple example is that I often see some people who often attack other people with different ideas that are different from this official mainstream ideology to attack these minority groups such as LGBT, and one of their attacks is that these people only say that they will say How miserable it is and how to be persecuted by the society, but never thought about helping others, instead of crying, it is better to do charity or the like. In other words, here morality and altruism have become a means to attack others. Through this means to attack the dissatisfaction of the oppressed, thereby maintaining the rationality of social oppression, and to give yourself a kind of way to give yourself a kind of False superiority. Of course, this is just one of the examples. In my observation, I found that many times the sympathy and help of others is pregnant with a mentality that regards themselves as the savior. These people feel pity for with others to show their kindness. To enjoy the thanks to those who were helped by them, so they formed a relationship between "kindness God" and "saved lamb". In this relationship, God and the status of the lamb have never been equal, because this relationship assumes that the lamb can only rely on God's kindness and kindness to ensure the survival and life of the lamb. Lambs can only be lambs. It cannot be everything except the lamb. More importantly, God’s benevolence has never been cost -effective. God's alms on the lamb is based on God's control of the lamb. Just like modern high welefare society, on the surface you can live a happy life, but the cost of this high welefare is the control of government agencies for society. The people must live in society's control and work for society to get this so -called happy life. Just like the famous utilitarianism Bentham, he proposed that everyone's happiness is the most important theory. At the same time, it has greatly developed and promoted the modern social punishment system, so that the society discipline can be further deep into everyone. And this kind of control is not only the government's control of people, but also the control of the free market, because a ethical foundation of the free market is equal exchanges between people through currency and other circulation methods. Behind it is to convert people's value into cold numbers, and use this to force everyone to sacrifice their own interests for this equality exchange and squeeze their own value. The altruism system of mutual assistance such as charitable welfare and other people also exists in the ethical foundation of this free market, and the altruism system is given to everyone through charity and welfare. However, the cost of this help is everyone to sacrifice yourself for this social system, and voluntarily become slaves to maintain this society. And morality creates a false good -evil dual opposition. In this kind of good and evil dual opposition, people only need to support the good and need to eliminate the evil side. But this logic itself is extremely ridiculous. It is like a good king and a evil king who will collect the taxes of the people and force a large number of people to serve and military service. Although a evil king will be better than a good king implements more atrocities, but in essentially, whether it is a good king or a evil king, the essence of their oppression will not have any substantial changes in the social system. However, what morality provides dual opposition always puts our attention on the personal-morality of the rulers. Let us have a rules who only want to eliminate bad rules. This illusion, in other words, this kind of good and evil dual opposition itself is a society spectacle of guy debord. Of course, even if there are no government and free markets and other oppression, whether morality and altruism are not oppressed? My answer is morality and altruism itself is oppression of people. Vecause people's desire is flowing. We can't only think of love and peace at all times. We always have some dirty thoughts. This is inevitable that if this love and peace are to be achieved, we must go to the moment to oppression our own desires, and considering this dirty desire will always jump out in we heartd. Therefore, we must review people's remarks and behaviors through moral police, and all even reviewing people's ideas. Even if you do not need to rely on a moral police on a bureaucracy, the moral police that exists in our hearts to do it to go for review have almost perfectionist obsessive -compulsive disorder. Therefore, as long as morality and altruism exist, then this kind of self -oppression will inevitably appear, not to mention that there is a lot of antinomy in moral itself. An article I have written recently is to describe the Moral Institute. The antinomy are not much related to the oppression of moral itself. After all, whether there is such contradictions does not prevent morality itself from the oppression nature of morality itself. This is why I said before that I don’t like Tolstoy, Kropotkin, and the Camus hope of everyone happiness and promote mutual assistances's views. In my opinion, the essence of their thoughts is that Bookchinism, which is not so extreme, is to suppress itself, so I hate helping others, and support it through an absolute revolution, through a fierce kind of fiercely through a kind of intense revolution Social struggles to destroy the fierce society. Of course, I have to say that these are my previous views. Although these are also my current views, unlike the previous thing, I found an angle that I was ignored. This perspective is whether it is Stirner or Nietzsche, they Do not deny the behavior of helping others itself. They just think that this behavior must be because of their own desire for egoism. When I discovered this neglected angle, I realized that my previous criticism of morality and altruism lacks an important part, that is, the behavior of helping others is not morality and altruism. The behavior itself is driven by our own ideas, which is an expression of our own desire. This causes both communism and egoism itself not rejected by this behavior that helps others, because this behavior itself is just a normal part of our own. And I have rejected a logic of morality and altruism before, that is we can help others that can only rely on the forced implantation of morality and altruism. Come out must maintain the basis of morality and altruism, and the opposition to helping others ’behavior itself is also a oppression of our desire. This oppression itself is no different from the so -called good's oppression of evil. Just like what you said, the pure negation itself is just creates a new idol. I advocate revolution and social struggles complete to negate help others, but this itself creates a revolutionary idol, a destructive idol. The purpose of revolution and social struggle is not to negate for helping others. Of course, helping others is not to negate the revolution and social struggle. Both of them can affirm each other. Of course, we can also affirm the value of both at the same time. Now when I am back to that three people, these three people advocate everyone's happiness and promote mutual assistance, but they have not denied social struggle. The tolstoy support anarchism's foundation was because he saw the oppression of serfs in Russian society at that time, so he realized that he had to fight the social struggle to liberate the serfs. Of course, I do not necessarily agree with the way he chose, but he can finally recognize the necessity of social struggle. In addition to Tolstoy, and Kropotkin and Camus. They can all recognize the necessity of social struggle, let alone Kropotkin still supports the necessity of social revolution. In fact, the mutual aid society of Kropotkin is built on the basis of eliminating all social oppression and based on a freedom of everyone. In fact, this is also ego-communism or post-left believes that the combination of Kropotkin's mutual aid society and Stirner's union of unique. Of course, there must be different specifics, but one of the important foundations of the two is the mutual assistance based on the abolition of oppression. And in my latest thinking, I discovered that a real helping others need to be based on the abolition of morality and altruism, just like I had a kind of nihilism in reality. I have a point of view, but I actually often help some people around me, so that I doubt whether my theory and practice are too contradictory. But now I don't have too many problems, because I now understand that the reason why I have a lot of problems I say is because this helps others is based on the exchange and sacrifice of the morality and altruism system. Because of the existence of this system, it has led to helping others the spectacle of society and a false appearance. But now, I only help others out of my own desires and ideas, so I will not think that I can control others, not think market exchange with others and to sacrifice others. It's not because I think I can get what I can get, so I do these just because I think. As Nietzsche expressed, I am the sun, I only give it, but I never ask. In other words, it is exactly that I put aside these other thoughts. I help to others is the real help, not other things other than that. The above content is what I really want to express to you in that conversation. I did not say that your view of communism is wrong, but I do not fundamentally want to discuss communism, but to discuss the criticism of morality and altruism, and what I have changed is my view of morality and altruism. Having said that, in fact, my previous views on morality and altruism have not been abolished. I just incorporated some of the criticisms you said to be pure negation, and so that my theory can become more From this perspective, I still thank you for his intelligence for my intelligence.
HelloThere314 - I'm sorry that I mistook what you were saying for communism, I suppose I found that your descriptions of mutual aid to be very much like an asystematic communism. Now I would agree and say that to deny altruism in its entirety is just as essentialist as to deny greed. A pure negation of society necessarily affirms an opposite society, one just as flawed as the first. To go beyond good and evil is to reject the categories, not what they mean. Now on Camus, Tolstoy and the like, I'd say that they imagine cooperation. This cooperation is necessary for any form of collective affirmation, and this is what they seek. Camus envisions a society of cooperation, as does tolstoy. I find personally that for any goal to be achieved there must be cooperation. Now I do agree with you that these visions they have come from moralism, wich I don't like, but their goals don't necessaraly have to be. The union of egoists is a union of cooperation between egoists for example.
- Ibelulo - Regarding mutual aid, this may be a problem with my expression or a problem with translation. Of course, the most likely thing is that I know nothing about economic principles. The fundamental reason why I am not good at economics is that I am almost not good at mathematics. This means that many times when thinking about economics, I will transform it into a non-mathematical model that I am good at. Although this is easy to understand, it will lead to inaccurate expressions. clear.When I was thinking about economic issues, I did try to add a lot of ideas, but most of these ideas had a chaotic feeling, which meant that I didn't know how to put them together. This is a mathematical problem. A large part of the reason why I am not good at mathematics is because I am tired of learning, which makes me only know the most basic addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. I think I may have to learn these things from scratch.One other thing I want to say is that I copied what your page said about Wolff to a friend of mine. He doesn’t quite understand what you want to express, because he believes that workers can of course produce goods while driving. He guesses that what you want to express may be that Wolff is a market socialist, and the commoditized production triggered by market mechanisms Privatization of data transfer is the root of capitalism; therefore the market cannot be the based of socialism.But he believed that these were just for the sake of easy understanding, so Wolff only singled out the master-slave relationship as examples with clear themes. The purpose was to clarify the actual situation of wage slavery, which was in line with American positivist thinking. Wolff's arguments are all based on Marx's principles of political economy. And it shows that according to Marx's theory: the basis of capitalism is the unequal exchange between capital and labor;Through exchange, the owners of capital and commodity value possess the labor surplus output of workers for free, that is, commercialized surplus labor-surplus value; capitalism, like previous class systems, is a minority of appropriators who possess the majority of producers for free. In a society where the fruits of labor are obtained, capitalism realizes free appropriation through universal exchange.So his views are basically wrong: because capitalist exploitation neither comes from capitalists nor companies (what does it matter if the means of production and production organization are not combined with the producers themselves?); capitalist exploitation comes from free possession, which This kind of ownership relationship is determined by capitalist production relations; to abolish these exploitative relations, the social means of production must be transferred to social ownership, and possession becomes a social function.He was not a supporter of the market, but he supported Workplace Democracy, which was probably the main reason why he sympathized with Wolff. His economic theory was basically based on council communism, mixed with some anarcho-syndicalism. Economic theory, and recommended some anarcho-syndicalist economic theories to me. I wonder what your opinion is on his critic? I will explain it in detail about you in the system.
I come to debate on your belief about Christianity, that is believing that Christianity produces slave morality, and it would seem so as God is a "master" throughout the Bible. Right? Nope. That is a incorrect thesis about the Bible, whether or not you accept the literalness of the Bible. The laws given by God in the Bible are often changing, for example see the change in attitude about slaves from Exod 21:23-25, to Dt 15:14, and then again to Lev 25:39-47. This is a recognizable change in the Law. Secondly, Biblical word is often contradicted flat out in juxtaposition to an original thesis! Look at "Do not answer a fool according to his folly..." (Pr 26:4) and Pr 26:5 - "Answer a fool according to his folly..." This is showing clearly that the Bible is not a how-everything-works manual. (I will note these passages I got from How The Bible Actually Works by Peter Enns.) Yet another thing about God's Law is that it is necessarily transposed to the current day, making sections which seem obtuse and culturally distant feel logical and much more relevant to our times. A Biblical example of this done by Paul is in Ro 13:8-10. This all shows what the aim of the Law is and is not. The aim of the Law and the Bible is NOT to tell you strictly and eternally what and how to do everything in perfect detail. The aim of Scripture IS to construct wisdom and encourage conversation... it is MEANT to be transposed and to be hermeneutically fluid. God is no master, God always functions as a changing, nondogmatic entity.
HelloThere314 - Thanks for taking the time to critique some of my beliefs, I find a good natured debate very beneficial. However I think you miss the point of Nietzsche's critique of slave morality. To start it does not matter if god is a changing entity to if he is a master, an idol, over oneself. The constant fluidity of rules and its lack of dogma in assigning rules does not change the fact of the rules existence. For example in the New Testament upon Jesus' arrival the Christian rules change, however one is still meant to worship god, that never changes. Judgment day, the apocalypse, in the New Testament is based on if one worships god and places him as an idol. It is the same as the state's liberalization, the free election of masters does not change the relation of masters and slaves. We may have more rights now, more freedoms, but these are always given not taken. Along with this Nietzsche's critique has far more weight, that being the Christian morality style with or without the theology behind it. Christianity involves resentment in Nietzsche's view, limiting the assertion of oneself. It does not matter what the rules are, it only matters that there are rules of good and evil.
Cyberdelic Egoism - Hey, Could you change my relations? sorry cause you know i'm no longer a panarchist?
HelloThere314 - Sure, but I don't have much info anymore.
Neo-Levithianism You seem like a well-educated individual,mind looking at my set of beliefs? And maybe add me?
Temujin Leeism - you seem pretty good, kinda like a more Stirnerpilled and economically neutral version of me. Also add me, as I respect your knowledge.
- Add me maybe?