HUMANITY – THE NEW SUPREME BEING:HUMANE LIBERALISM

stirner 7

 

 

 

 

 

Humane liberalism is the label Stirner gives to the humanism or “critical philosophy” of thinkers like Feuerbach and Bruno and Edgar Bauer. In the progression of modernist or l iberal thought, Stirner identifies humane l iberalism or “criticism” as the “highest presupposition,” or the apex and most advanced, predictable outcome of modernism.

Continue reading

IO MI ELEVO!

Stirner_Der_Einzige_und_sein_Eigentum_djvu

 

 

 

 

 

 

I “rivoluzionari” del 1848 erano stregati da un’idea. Non erano per nulla padroni delle idee. La più parte di coloro che da allora si sono inorgogliti della patente rivoluzionaria sono stati e sono nient’altro che schiavi di un’idea – cioè della diversa distribuzione dell’autorità. C’è la tentazione, naturalmente, di fornire una spiegazione per il pensiero centrale di questo libro; ma tale sforzo appare superfluo a chiunque stringa il volume tra le mani.

Continue reading

L’INCENDIO DEL FALSO PRINCIPIO DELLA NOSTRA EDUCAZIONE

stirner 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

Qual’è il vero volto dell’educazione?

Continue reading

ABSURD TEMPORALITY

CADUTI DAL TEMPO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHO AM I, IF NOT THE SICKLY EMBODIMENT OF MY OWN TEMPORALITY? THE SO-CALLED “HUMAN CONDITION”: THAT ULTIMATELY VAIN AND INEFFECTUAL INTERRUPTION OF NOT-BEING, IS A CRUEL DIALECTICAL JOKE; A POINTLESS AND IRREVOCABLE MISTAKE BROUGHT ABOUT BY A BIRTH IN WHICH WE HAD NO SAY.

  Continue reading

HUMANITY – THE NEW SUPREME BEING:SOCIAL LIBERALISM

stirner 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

The liberal state is inherently unstable because of the contradiction between its professed values of equality, freedom, and universal welfare against the harsh reality of class inequality.

The instability caused by class inequality provides a foundation for supplanting political liberalism with social liberalism, or the replacement of classical liberalism with socialism and communism.

 

Under political liberalism, persons are theoretically equal under the law, but their possessions are not. The inequality of possessions threatens social stability and the fulfillment of the humanist agenda since the proletariat may decide to resist the class structure of political liberalism.

 

Social liberalism is the term Stirner gives to the socialist, communist, and collectivist anarchist theories and movements that attempt to organize the working class and overthrow the regime of political liberalism. The writings and advocacy of pre-Marxian collectivists such as Moses Hess, Williamm Weitling, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon were particularly important statements of social liberalism at the time Stirner prepared The Ego and Its Own .

 

In Stirner’s dialectical egoist critique, political libera lism responds to the decay of monarchy and the aristocracy by arguing that no one must give orders, no one must command except a government which derives its legitimacy from popular sovereignty.

 

Social liberal ism responds to the inequality of classes by arguing that no one must own anything. Under the regime of social liberalism, not only does the state obtain a monopoly in the legitimate use of force, society alone obtains the right to possess property.

 

Social liberalism abhors the use of state power to protect a person’s property since property enforces social boundaries on the possession and use of material objects. Political liberalism supports the right to own property and enforces this right through the use or the threat of the use of force.

 

The person who wants “more things” and discovers that others have “more things,” also finds that access to “more things” is under the control of other people. The contradiction of political liberalism is that no one is supposed to be inferior. No one is supposed to be able to command others.

 

The lordship-bondage relationship should have been destroyed . But some people have what other people would like to have. A “circuitously restored inequality” appeared under the regime of political liberalism.

 

The freedom of individuals from the domination by others falls short under political liberalism because private property means that some persons have the right to command and control the lives of others. Social liberalism intends to build on the accomplishments of the democratic revolutions by extending the principles of democracy and equality into the economy and the social class system.

 

The solution of the social liberals is to discredit justifications for private property and to have the democratic state assert ownership of property through coercion. The solution of the social liberals, Stirner taunts, is forbid anyone from having anything any longer. Reduce everyone to the status of a pauper. Dispossess everyone of everything. Only the state, acting on behalf of society, can legitimately own property. The solution propounded by the social liberals is to eliminate all legitimate boundaries between “mine” and “thine.” All property is to be impersonal. No individual can legitimately assert or claim ownership over anything.

 

 

The state of social liberalism is tasked with creating “ragamuffins” and “nullities.” Persons are to become “ragamuffins together.” Society is to become a “ragamuffin crew.” The purpose of the political class is to enforce “ragamuffinism” throughout the nation.

 

For Stirner, this was the second great robbery of the personal in the interest of humanity. The second robbery is the appropriation of the possessions of individuals by the state on behalf of society. In the theory and practice of social liberalism, the liberal democratic state is obliged to appropriate possessions to ensure that people are not unequal in their possessions. Social liberalism intends to abolish class inequality, the inequality of possessions, the distinction between rich and poor, bourgeois and proletarian.

 

Stirner says that this is achieved through the impoverishment or pauperization of all. Property is taken from individuals and surrendered to the ghostly society.

 

 

LES MAÎTRES DE LA TERRE

LES MAÎTRES DE LA TERRE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pour mieux comprendre ce que Nietzsche entend par son phantasme vaticinant des « Maîtres de la Terre », on aimerait savoir quels seront les « esclaves » de pareils maîtres.

La réponse à la seconde question, Nietzsche la semble donner lui-même lorsqu’il demande à son tour : « Où sont les maîtres pour lesquels travaillent tous ces esclaves ? » Ce qui veut dire que la société industrielle ne se conçoit pas sans une généralisation du caractère « fonctionnel », c’est-à-dire « productif »et, par conséquent, mercantile qu’elle exige de toutes les activités.

Continue reading

NIETZSCHE: POLÍTICAS DEL NOMBRE PROPIO

NIETZCHE 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Que nos enseña Nietzsche

El nombre de Nietzsche designa, actualmente, en Occidente al único (posiblemente, aunque de otra manera, junto con Kierkegaard, y asimismo con Freud) que abordó la filosofía y la vida, la ciencia y la filosofía de la vida con su nombre, en su nombre. El único, posiblemente, que puso en juego su nombre sus nombres y sus biografías. Con casi todos los riesgos que esto conlleva: para “el”, para “ellos”, para sus vidas, sus nombres y su porvenir, especialmente el porvenir político de aquello cuya firma asumió.

  Continue reading

THE PHILOSOPHY OF EGOISM XI

STIRNER 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

The suggestion has been heard that if all acts are Egoistic this term has no distinctive meaning.

The same thing has often been said as to “matter” when the Materialist has affirmed that there is no ” spirit, “-no opp osi te of matter. Matter then becomes synonymous simply with existence.

  Continue reading

INTUITION NIETZSCHÉENNE DE LA RÉALITÉ POLITIQUE

LA GRANDE POLITIQUE

 

 

 

 

 

La pensée de Nietzsche se porte sur les nécessités premières et toujours les mêmes des relations humaines, particulièrement l’état, la guerre et la paix, ensuite les situations politiques actuelles, la démocratie européenne. Ce n’est pas la détermination concrète du contenu particulier qui est essentielle à cette pensée, mais la grande intuition en tant que telle, d’où résulte la direction que prend la « grande politique ».

  Continue reading

LES FANTÔMES

STIRNER 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cette révolte de l’individu [contre l’Idéal élevé en tant que sacré, le culte moderne de l’Esprit et de l’Homme NdIL] est difficile, parce qu’elle a surtout à vaincre des fantômes : ceux que l’esprit humain a créés, ceux que les divers pouvoirs proposent à chacun pour mieux le contrôler.

Stirner aboutit à ce paradoxe que l’individu est asservi de manière très rigide par des idées et des êtres inconsistants. Telle la prison d’air de Merlin, des barreaux l’entourent qu’il ne peut franchir, mais qui se multiplient et restreignent son espace vital, son pouvoir.

  Continue reading

Page 61 of 62
1 59 60 61 62