Jul 18, 2024 10:33 PM
(This post was last modified: Jul 19, 2024 06:27 AM by C C.)
REFERENCE (scivillage): Solzhenitsyn warned us
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Max Striner (The Ego and His Own): Political liberalism, like everything religious, counts on respect, humanity, the loving virtues. That’s why it lives in endless annoyance...
[...] what the human being can get belongs to him: the world belongs to me. Are you saying anything else with the opposite proposition: “The world belongs to all”? All are I and I again, etc. But you make a phantasm out of the “all” and make it sacred, so that then “all” become the awful masters of the individual. Then the ghost of “right” stands at their side.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, like the communists, fights against egoism. That is why they are continuations and consequences of the Christian principle, the principle of love, of sacrifice for something universal, something alien. They complete, for example, in property, only what has long existed in the matter—namely the propertylessness of individuals.
When the law says: Ad reges potestas omnium pertinet, ad singulos proprietas; omnia rex imperio possidet, singuli dominio, it means this: The king is the property owner, because he alone can dispose of and deal with “everything”; he has potestas and imperium over it. The communists make this clearer in that they transfer that imperium to the “society of all.”
So: Since they’re enemies of egoism, they are therefore Christians, or more generally, religious people, believers in ghosts, dependents, servants of whatever universal (God, society, etc.).
Proudhon is also like the Christians in this, in that he attributes to God what he denies to human beings. He calls him the Propriétaire of the earth. With this he proves that he can’t think away the property owner as such; he comes at last to a property owner, but transfers him to the other world.
The property owner is neither God nor the human being (“human society”), but the individual.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sometimes you have to go deep into the ancestral heartland of anarchism (above) to find a smoking gun. The "communists" referred to are pre-Marxist, but surely you didn't believe Uncle Karl built everything from scratch. He just tweaked the existing product of _X_ literary intellectuals (ultimately emanating from the aftershocks of the French Revolution).
As has been suspected, contended, etc: The left-Hegelian movement that gave birth to Marxist philosophy and other socioeconomic factions (which progressivism much later imitated while still clinging to advocacy of capitalism) -- was opportunistically appropriating the do-gooderism of Christianity and its missionary impulses for its own brand of exploitive and revolutionary purposes.
Despite embracing materialism, Stirner points out that secular and political non-theists of his era were still contrarily clinging to and utilizing invented spooks and phantasms instantiated by language.
Whereas classic religious populations take concepts, principles, abstract ideas and personify them as anthropomorphic and zoomorphic gods... Political materialists simply stopped short of the latter, while still indoctrinating and enslaving the proles and whatever marginalized groups to their non-personified brand of make-believe (ideas).
Classic liberalism was at least still somewhat internally consistent with itself via hand-waving at some lingering Deist-like entity or whatever faded shadow in its corners, while begging the masses to conform to its philosophical #### that purely existed on paper (in anti-immaterialism context).
Whereas political non-theists were more fully conflicting with their metaphysics -- totally eliminating the personified ideology of the classically religious, while still espousing a leftover category of doctrine and immaterial moral and economic principles/laws (which retained the status of fabrication or fantasy in materialist context).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Max Striner (The Ego and His Own): Political liberalism, like everything religious, counts on respect, humanity, the loving virtues. That’s why it lives in endless annoyance...
[...] what the human being can get belongs to him: the world belongs to me. Are you saying anything else with the opposite proposition: “The world belongs to all”? All are I and I again, etc. But you make a phantasm out of the “all” and make it sacred, so that then “all” become the awful masters of the individual. Then the ghost of “right” stands at their side.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, like the communists, fights against egoism. That is why they are continuations and consequences of the Christian principle, the principle of love, of sacrifice for something universal, something alien. They complete, for example, in property, only what has long existed in the matter—namely the propertylessness of individuals.
When the law says: Ad reges potestas omnium pertinet, ad singulos proprietas; omnia rex imperio possidet, singuli dominio, it means this: The king is the property owner, because he alone can dispose of and deal with “everything”; he has potestas and imperium over it. The communists make this clearer in that they transfer that imperium to the “society of all.”
So: Since they’re enemies of egoism, they are therefore Christians, or more generally, religious people, believers in ghosts, dependents, servants of whatever universal (God, society, etc.).
Proudhon is also like the Christians in this, in that he attributes to God what he denies to human beings. He calls him the Propriétaire of the earth. With this he proves that he can’t think away the property owner as such; he comes at last to a property owner, but transfers him to the other world.
The property owner is neither God nor the human being (“human society”), but the individual.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sometimes you have to go deep into the ancestral heartland of anarchism (above) to find a smoking gun. The "communists" referred to are pre-Marxist, but surely you didn't believe Uncle Karl built everything from scratch. He just tweaked the existing product of _X_ literary intellectuals (ultimately emanating from the aftershocks of the French Revolution).
As has been suspected, contended, etc: The left-Hegelian movement that gave birth to Marxist philosophy and other socioeconomic factions (which progressivism much later imitated while still clinging to advocacy of capitalism) -- was opportunistically appropriating the do-gooderism of Christianity and its missionary impulses for its own brand of exploitive and revolutionary purposes.
Despite embracing materialism, Stirner points out that secular and political non-theists of his era were still contrarily clinging to and utilizing invented spooks and phantasms instantiated by language.
Whereas classic religious populations take concepts, principles, abstract ideas and personify them as anthropomorphic and zoomorphic gods... Political materialists simply stopped short of the latter, while still indoctrinating and enslaving the proles and whatever marginalized groups to their non-personified brand of make-believe (ideas).
Classic liberalism was at least still somewhat internally consistent with itself via hand-waving at some lingering Deist-like entity or whatever faded shadow in its corners, while begging the masses to conform to its philosophical #### that purely existed on paper (in anti-immaterialism context).
Whereas political non-theists were more fully conflicting with their metaphysics -- totally eliminating the personified ideology of the classically religious, while still espousing a leftover category of doctrine and immaterial moral and economic principles/laws (which retained the status of fabrication or fantasy in materialist context).