He certainly made a disgusting mess out of poor bastards like Chomsky with the intellectual weight of a fly.
Universal linguistics. What a cuck. Foucault had balls. But it was never going anywhere, because there is no collective.
And once you break that barrier, once you realize that truth, only then can you begin to imagine associations.
The collectivist acts, ironically, as a fanatic individualist. This is because he fails to see that his compulsions and drives are individual, not attached to the collective he pathologically recreates in his affective universe, and so fails to distinguish between his own drives and those of others, or how those drives can intersect for mutual advancement.
See where I say the DSM is a pathological manifestation of modern psychologists, Foucault would say that it is a pathological manifestation of modern psychology.
He wouldn’t trace it to individual hang-ups, he would trace it to collective pressures towards consolidation of power for the ruling classes.
Despite his admiration and appreciation for Nietzsche, he could never break out of phenomenology.
This was because of his own pathological need to belong to the university class.
Only ever trust autodidacts.
A classic example of just how far moral nihilism can be wrenched in our modern world.
Ur analysis was patently stirnerite but incomplete. It’s exactly that egoism and individualism that strengthens the drive to possess one’s property completely - the laborer as the pure egoist (S) - and inevitably leads to the recognition of other egoists engaged in the same struggle; ergo, the syndicate is the union of egoists!
Also recognized is the common authority/oppressor against which they all struggle in the battle for property.
The anarchist begins as the hyper-egoistic break from the collective, but in recognizing a common cause shared by many in that collective, he re-establishes a union and therefore a moral obligation to others.
So yes, anarchist revolutionaries are raging individualists disguised as collectivists disguised as individualists voluntarily commited to a cause, but the cause is not scared… socialism is not sacred… it would just be the final result of the practices of the union of egoists! What do I care for socialism, or any other ism!!
Psh, if that were true you would have as easy a time associating with the ‘oppressor.’ He only becomes an ‘oppressor’ when a collective he opresses exists which precedes any individual.
Stirner, I knew you would mention that clown.
OK, ghosts, but wherefrom the ghosts?
Nobody knows.
Some unseen collective I imagine.
Even ‘the’ oppressor is already a collective, rather than specific individuals with individual drives and compulsions.
The important thing is that a collective is not a categorical thing that exists. It is a pathological projection. What it is that exists is a pathological need to belong.
Why did Foucault never justify the collective he analyzed? Why did Stirner never justify the ghosts?
Because they are pathological concoctions, not intellectual. You don’t question it because that would mean risking the possibility that it isn’t real, which would defeat the whole purpose.
Sure, maybe. But, come on, given all of the profoundly problematic variables that go into the making of any particular psychological frame of mind, each of us as individuals will always only to be able to go in so far in understanding why we do the things we do. Let alone why others do what they do. Cue the scientists, the philosophers, the epistemologists, the theologians, the ethicists, the sociologists, the anthropologists, the ethnologists, the political scientists, the shrinks, the ideologues, the Satyrean genes > memes clique/claque.
Let them all weigh in and set us straight.
And that’s before we get to the ever evolving, coagulating mish-mash of contingency, chance and change embedded in history marching on.
Let alone the points I raise here:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382
The Iceman? You tell me. 
Communal ownership would instantly negate this. That you don’t see this glaring contradiction is explained by the pathological nature of your understanding of reality.
Individuals, that understand there is no collective, understand there are other individuals too, and they will want stuff too, and you will have to be reasonable and deal with them. If you go full fanatic ‘it’s all mine,’ you will be fulminated. It is unreasonable, and only imaginable if you fail to understand that there are other individuals with drives and compulsions, that also want to possess.
Hold that stuff about the communal ownership and what u think that means fer a minute, and look at this. Imma show u what the real problem with socialism is… or isn’t, rather, but I gotta show u first. The issue has never been ethical; nobody has ever and will ever produce an argument against Marx’s vision that’ll hold any water because a Marxist society would be the most directly democratic society possible. So Marxism is not a ‘virtue’ argument that would get lost up in debates about what ‘liberty’ and ‘justice’ are and all the philosophical ambiguity that comes with that. It’s takes as it’s first premise that these things are not possible in the first place unless u have a solid, intersubjective agreement on what these concepts mean… and u can’t do that until you have maximized the quantity of democracy in ur society by distributing control of the products of labor across a continuum of networking, democratic bodies. The workplace must be democratized first. Everything follows.
In a Marxist society, nobody has an excuse to be a bitch because - and this irony is so sweet - everything is too fair for u to complain. A capitalist society on the other hand produces legitimate substance for complaint as obviously there is little incentive to take an $8 per hour job at the BK lounge when a week’s pay won’t ever cover your water bill. Oh gosh I’m rambling - let us continue.
The following comes from an article a dude wrote to critique the notion that socialism would work because planned economies have been shown to work for large companies like Walmart and aMAzOn. He goes in about the calculation problem never being solved, etc. Here is where the relevant part begins. He’s gonna slip in the concealed premise that ‘incentive’ couldn’t be produced in such a system where innovative risks couldn’t be taken:
“While one could imagine theoretically a supercomputer that could plan the allocation of resources to their most efficient use at a single point in time across given products with fixed production methods, the true gains from market capitalism over time come from the efficiency generated by innovation.”
“Absent profit and loss, there is no incentive to carve out those niches, to differentiate products, to search for the continual improvement in the efficiency of the production process, or for entrepreneurs to dream up new ideas to tap into latent demands to capture profits.”
cato.org/commentary/no-walm … omies-work
Nowhere does it logically follow from this that an idea for improving the means and modes of production and distribution can’t be rewarded in a controlled economy.
The real problem is, if resources and investments are made for a product that ends up an inevitable failure, how will that lost capital be compensated for. That is also to say, if I don’t have my own private capital, upon which I will either stand or fall, nobody will invest in the venture of my vision. And if I can’t express my vision, fuck u I ain’t gonna work.
That’s our problem, not some inability for a computer to make the most rational decision at a moment’s notice of vast amounts of market information.
People gotta be able to gamble an idea and be significantly rewarded if it works. That’s the life blood of the creative impulse in mang. I’m not disagreeing with any of this.
I’m saying the obstacle is only an economic one, not an ethical one, not even a philosophical one.
But that article appears to be a response to an article written a month earlier that defends the controlled market theory. U get them both on the Google search. I hadn’t read it yet but I’m fixin too hold on.
I just want to point out, that none of what you said is connected in any way to what we were talking about, or to ownership of property, and not even adjacent to individual v collective ownership or association of drives and compulsions.
I point this out to sort of reinforce some of the themes I have been going over lately.
Whether it’s economically viable is unimportant. Not to me, to you. The reason you obsess over it is to avoid looking at the glaring underpinning contradictions. The fact that it is a slightly unhinged riddle with no actual answer is not a failing of it, it is its purpose.
This is not an intellectual ploy, it is a pathological impulse.
Same way as if you pointed out to Foucault that he accounts for everything but the collective he holds as primal, he would go off rambling on some tangent about how the ruling classes influence some aspect of life or another that is completely unrelated to the question that was asked. And if you pointed out the fact of this digression, he would just digress again in some different, equally unrelated direction.
That’s what you don’t get with these killers and rapists.
The victory is not in an answer to some crazy riddle, it is in looking at the riddle rather than the underlying (unacceptable) reality. Unacceptable, but known. The victory of the pathology is not even in the killing or the raping. That is just something these faggots do to drain some sense of powerlessness, of lack of control. The victory is in pretending it’s about something else, something not pathetic. And the victory is not even in pretending. Again, the reality is known. The victory is in looking at the pretense, rather than the unavoidably known reality. Just the looking. So if the riddle is solvable, that would be pointless. As soon as you solve it, you stop looking at it.
It’s a victory because the reality is already known, already exists, unerasable. So any added avoidance is gain, is victory.
How do you treat something like that?
Well in the case of a rapist fuck you don’t treat it, ideally you dismember and behead him in no particular order and then bury him in the woods somewhere.
But in some different case, you show the person that they do have power. You don’t talk to the compulsive avoidance, and you don’t directly address the source of the feeling of powerlessness either, that would just trigger the mechanism. You just show them, in an unrelated way, that they do have power.
You see the reason we call it pathological is that it is an instinctual response not based in reason. Something triggers an emotion at some moment, the feeling is urgent, and the urgency prompts a response that has no time to go through reason. But the fact itself of the powerlessness is not true. So you don’t re-trigger the moment. You slowly show actual power that is circumvented by the compulsion, which carries with it the certitude that there is powerlessness, otherwise the response would not be swift enough to address the urgency, and let a feeling of power pour in through unrelated channels, until the original response no longer finds a trigger and dissipates, and clarity enters.
This, of course, granted that you give a shit about the person.
It’s tricky as shit though.
They will come at you with an appeal to the feeling of powerlessness, which is fine, you just ignore it. The very ignoring will begin to send the message that it’s not true, that you don’t agree with them they are powerless.
The issue is whenever a feeling of powerlessness comes over yourself, they will instantly feed on it and use it to reinforce their own agenda of powerlessness. And nobody is powerful all the time.
But the victories stick. Therapeutic reversals tend to remain and resist regression. The feeling of power is addictive.
Women are born therapists. They instinctually find the power in you, because they need it to form their family and shit. Them and that child will be mighty vulnerable.
Shit, what was I talking about?
We need to get some girlfriends prom, that’s the point of this whole thing.