American Marxism

[promethean75]

Before I answer.... *looks around*.... are you any relation to Joseph McCarthy?

[henry quirk]

Before I answer.... *looks around*.... are you any relation to Joseph McCarthy?

Nope.

[promethean75]

I'm a stirnerite spook-busting anarcho-nihilist, in fact, but I've got personal history with some of the worst things capitalism has to offer; corrupt criminal and civil courts, incompetent health care systems, thieving police, medical negligence by prison staff, slum landlords, employers who don't pay, the list goes on.

I've simply got a common enemy with the marxists, so I often fight beside them. On message boards, I mean. In the real world there are no revolutionaries. Capitalism/consumerism has made that impossible. You can buy a che Guevara t-shirt at a decent price, tho.

[Belinda]

I'm a stirnerite spook-busting anarcho-nihilist, in fact, but I've got personal history with some of the worst things capitalism has to offer; corrupt criminal and civil courts, incompetent health care systems, thieving police, medical negligence by prison staff, slum landlords, employers who don't pay, the list goes on.

I've simply got a common enemy with the marxists, so I often fight beside them. On message boards, I mean. In the real world there are no revolutionaries. Capitalism/consumerism has made that impossible. You can buy a che Guevara t-shirt at a decent price, tho.

Is there any means by which comfortable bourgoisie can have the same common enemy? I think there is, but I'd like your opinion.

[mickthinks]

The American right has been screaming "The Socialists are coming!" ever since the Southern Oligarchs' (aka White Supremacists') failed insurrection and the federal government imposed Reconstruction (aka Black Lives Matter 1.0) on them.

Throw off the old Klansman's blinkers that Levin and his ilk peddled to you and you'll see things more clearly.

[henry quirk]

I'm a stirnerite spook-busting anarcho-nihilist

Saint Max: I can't agree with him anymore but I'm still fond of his big, broken, manifesto.

Wheels in the head: unavoidable, I think. Only a machine (utterly rational) could divorce itself from all bias.

Anarchism: me, I'm a natural rights guy...I take my anarchism differently.

Nihilism: it was a dead end for me.


in fact, but I've got personal history with some of the worst things capitalism has to offer; corrupt criminal and civil courts, incompetent health care systems, thieving police, medical negligence by prison staff, slum landlords, employers who don't pay, the list goes on.

Oh, capitalism (particularly state capitalism) is not a favorite of mine. Free Enterprise, now that there is tops.


I've simply got a common enemy with the marxists, so I often fight beside them.

I share some of their concerns, yeah, but I can't help but view them as as much the enemy as the robber baron.



In the real world there are no revolutionaries.

You don't have to revolt: just be unruly.

[promethean75]

"Saint Max: I can't agree with him anymore but I'm still fond of his big, broken, manifesto."

I understand Stirner to be a response to Hegel's re-mystification of philosophy following the limits placed upon it by Kant. In this sense Stirner was a much needed demolitionist.

Next we find Marx responding to Stirner's demolition, and in rebuilding, he and Engels create that last philosophy; historical materialism.

Anything else is a relic of the past or the hegemonic ideology of some existing ruling-class. Thus a well informed anarcho-nihilism, I believe, is the most rational point of view. Particularly cosmic, existential and moral nihilism. Cosmicism might express these attitudes in toto.

"Anarchism: me, I'm a natural rights guy...I take my anarchism differently.

Nihilism: it was a dead end for me."

Couple things. If 'natural rights' are not granted by something transcending humanity (such as a 'god'), then there is not one whit of significance added to 'natural rights' even if a billion people intersubjectively agree to establish and confide in them.

As for the nihilism.... consider that as a nihilist, you still get along in much the same way as most people, such that besides differences in attitude and opinion, you'd be more or less indistinguishable from others.

The position of nihilism is based on a set of basic philosophical propositions... which is to say you can't really 'be' a nihilist because you can't be a set of propositions.

To say further that such nihilistic attitudes and opinions form and influence your behavior is to say that propositions are able to do this. I don't believe they do, as I consider such things to be epiphenomenon (and I'm a spinozist determinist). Rather a nihilist, having genuine rational knowledge and experience of the nature of life and the universe, 'arrives' at those nihilistic propositions naturally... in the same way, say, a swordsman finds himself strangely inclined to be excellent with a saber. It comes naturally and is less learned than an expression of essential fortitude and strength.

So, if nihilism is found to be a 'dead-end' for someone, this is because it is found to be uncomfortable and unnerving, but not because it is thought to be an irrational position. It is, in fact, the most rational position given the nature of existence and the faculties of reason we possess to make sense out of it (existence).

"Oh, capitalism (particularly state capitalism) is not a favorite of mine. Free Enterprise, now that there is tops."

I'd be fine with any of this if those who endorse it weren't so ugly, incompetent and deceptive. To believe for a moment that in such a pseudo-democracy, everyone is bound by law in a society where classes are in direct conflict over the ownership and control of the means of production, is incredibly naive.

On the other hand, if the wild west could be recreated and championed by capitalists, I'd certainly participate. At least here I would be able to take what I wanted without being criticized and reprimanded by the state (which is just an apparatus originally designed to protect the property and rights of the ruling class).

"share some of their concerns, yeah, but I can't help but view them as as much the enemy as the robber baron."

This opinion is not your fault. It results from the systematic misapprehension of what Marxism is, due to its being associated with the failed Marxist revolutions of history. Indeed, there never has been a genuine Marxist state.

As a general rule of thumb, you can count any historical socialist/communist states as state capitalist systems. In which case your disgust would be justified if you thought you observed a practicing Marxist system.

[Belinda]

Prometheus75 wrote:

On the other hand, if the wild west could be recreated and championed by capitalists, I'd certainly participate. At least here I would be able to take what I wanted without being criticized and reprimanded by the state (which is just an apparatus originally designed to protect the property and rights of the ruling class).

Do you refer to the historical but not the mythologised Wild West? The myth of the Wild West is infused with the spirit of human rights.

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

Oh, capitalism (particularly state capitalism) is not a favorite of mine. Free Enterprise, now that there is tops.

Of course it is! But is it possible for most people? Henry, do you live in a rural terrain where families are isolated from other families by mountains, huge empty prairies, or fast flowing rivers or tides? I ask, because this would account for your belief that people can be to such degree independent of others.

[henry quirk]

Thus a well informed anarcho-nihilism, I believe, is the most rational point of view. Particularly cosmic, existential and moral nihilism. Cosmicism might express these attitudes in toto.

Yeah, I thought so too. But man isn't rational, nor can he be. Man is reasonable: he reasons (and reason is not always a logical affair). He intuits and recognizes moral fact. anarcho? Absolutely. Man requires no law makers. nihilism? A dead end...literally.


If 'natural rights' are not granted by something transcending humanity (such as a 'god'), then there is not one whit of significance added to 'natural rights' even if a billion people intersubjectively agree to establish and confide in them.

You're right. In an amoral, Godless, universe natural rights are hooey. I don't believe, with good reason I think, the universe is amoral and Godless.


if nihilism is found to be a 'dead-end' for someone, this is because it is found to be uncomfortable and unnerving, but not because it is thought to be an irrational position.

I was never discomforted by nihilism. I just found it, find it, barren.


I'd be fine with any of this if those who endorse it weren't so ugly, incompetent and deceptive. To believe for a moment that in such a pseudo-democracy, everyone is bound by law in a society where classes are in direct conflict over the ownership and control of the means of production, is incredibly naive.

The capitalist can be ugly (by definition, capitalism is about the capital), but Free Enterprisers? We're bee-u-tiful, scrupulous, and honest. If we're not: we starve or get shot.

Democracy: a fool's game.


This opinion is not your fault.

Of course not: it's my wisdom. The marxist is a slaver. His philosophy is a leash.


there never has been a genuine Marxist state.

Of course not: man is not built for it. Marxism is anti-human. The best anyone has been able to do with such awful thinkin' is the state-socialism or -communism.

[henry quirk]

Free Enterprise, now that there is tops.

Of course it is! But is it possible for most people?

Yep. There's nuthin' stoppin' anyone from providin' a service or product except a hobbled self-efficacy and government.


your belief that people can be to such degree independent of others.



I think mebbe you don't know what Free Enterprise is.

[promethean75]

Gee whiz Henry I haven't disagreed with a philosophy forum poster this much in like a whole week. Shit I don't even know where to start. I might get back to ya, or I might not. Lemme look around the place some more and see if there's any good fishin spots.

[henry quirk]

I might get back to ya, or I might not.

as you like...

[Belinda]

Free Enterprise, now that there is tops.

Of course it is! But is it possible for most people?

Yep. There's nuthin' stoppin' anyone from providin' a service or product except a hobbled self-efficacy and government.


your belief that people can be to such degree independent of others.



I think mebbe you don't know what Free Enterprise is.

I do like free enterprise, and I'd like everybody to feel they can do free enterprise to put bread on the table. I also believe in minimal controls on free enterprise from central and even local government authorities. I wish there was more opportunity for free enterprise among all peoples.

Some historical persons have made a great success of free enterprise (e.g. Robert Owen) and have altruistically and efficiently built very comfortable workers' housing and other welfare emoluments for their workers.

Our disagreement is about the degree of control.

[henry quirk]

Our disagreement is about the degree of control.

I agree.

Look here: you say, I also believe in minimal controls on free enterprise from central and even local government authorities. Such controls lead to exactly what we have now (capitalism that becomes state capitalism).

As a minarchist, I recognize the use of a minimal, local constabulary (to investigate claims of life, liberty, property violation) and a minimal, local court of last resort (to arbitrate and adjudicate), but regulators? Law makers? No, we don't need those.

As I've said (accordin' to lace, 5000 times) we need this...

A man belongs to himself (or, as my good friend, age, sez: A man is free.).

A man's life, liberty, and property are his.

A man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

Seems to me: those three lines cover the whole schmear. They set the foundation for what is and isn't permissible between and among men. Any laws or regs beyond them can only serve mercenary sons of bitches as they get a leg up (which, of course, is why such minimal codifications are resisted by TPTB. Those in power, or who crave power, won't promote that which deprives them of power or the possibility of power).

Free Enterprise, and the three line codification of natural rights above, neuter law makers (actual and wanna be), castrates The State (and those who'd buy its favor), voids democracy (just mob rule in Sunday-go-to-meetin' finery), and puts a (figurative [though I'm not opposed to literal]) bullet into the heads of commies and socialists and other would-be directors of mankind.