Great video. I think people tend to severely underestimate the economic implications of Stirners thought simply because to be an "egoist" needn't require you to adhere to any one economic system, which is generally true on it's face of course, but it is when the negativity in Stirners thought gets confused for neutrality that people most often get confused. There is no hypothetical or actually-existing global economic union that can be likened to what capitalists or communists desire that can exist without the flattening of desires to the point of sameness and the demanding of sacrifice to the collective (unless you suppose everyone secretly agrees with you), which necessarily voids such unions of their egoistic properties, which rules out any one "economic" configuration from being the one "right way" to do things egoistically when taking into account the plurality of subjectivities on this earth, hence there is no "egoist economics" complete with pre-figurated pat solutions for the worlds problems to point to. I've found that when people ask egoist critics of economies to provide a better alternative to their pet system, it is not too different to when proponents of the state-form smugly ask anarchists to point to an instance of actually-existing anarchy and are confused and dissatisfied when you list out a bunch of things that are obvious non-equivalents to a nation state in it's scale and scope, as what they're asking for is essentially an anarchist nation state, and in the case of egoist alternatives to conventional economic logic and ordering, they're looking for a rationally organized egoist form of productive alienation, an egoist non-egoism, as this rational ordering is a quality that has been taken by them to be obvious in any theorizing that has implications on society, as they clearly begin all their theorizing from the question of how they'd best go about making sure others do what they want them to do when they want them to do it. When having totalizing answers to all the worlds problems is posited as the necessary condition to your economic ideas being taken seriously, a rejection of such rational ordering is taken to be a neutral or "agnostic" economic stance that can be compatible with capitalism or communism or fascism or whateverism when it is in-fact a negativistic one, which in-fact does have real-world implications if applied to economic relations, for emergent non-ordered inputs have characteristics of their own which... while they can't necessarily be universalized in our descriptions of what exactly they can entail when put into practice on the ground-level, they can at least be identified as something radically distinct from all other inputs which answer to a societarian economic logic, where you're expected to follow and be held to the expectations of "the economy" or "humanity" or what have you. What is often missed in analyses that assert the economic neutrality (or irrelevance) of egoist insights is the fact that any kind of together-living implies some level of productive-consumptive circulating activity, and that if one it to suppose that such activity should begin from the smallest unit of organization possible so as to eliminate alienation (smallest unit meaning the "individual"), then communism and capitalism both get unraveled in the mix of such considerations, if not practically then at least conceptually in their static ideological forms, and if you want to practically do away with such systems of control, weakening the hold they have over you conceptually is step one to my mind, regardless of what step two is ultimately deemed to be for you on an individual level. "Economy" as a describable social phenomenon is a main-stay in any social formation so long as production and consumption continues to be more than a purely individuated process, so long as the circulation of goods is something that can be observed, whether egoistically or not. But the logic of economics which demands that rationally ordered inputs be given as a guaranteed part of everyday life is itself an abstraction with near infinite potential to enslave. This logic is often assumed to be a necessary quality of any economically relevant thought, which is exactly where this discussion gets completely lost in the sauce.
@romeodelatte9989
11 күн бұрын
Yes !
@zepp1312
28 күн бұрын
Fantastic video as always! I loved the dismantling of orthodox Marxism from an ego-anarchist perspective!
Пікірлер: 4