Was this an allegory of communism?

yes and we discussed it 2 years ago

>>30467478
Feminism. Ofcourse not all women are womyn and thus are lower on the totem pole.

>>30467478
Yep.

Nice to know my canadian horse anime hates communism and sociaism just as much as I do.

That's one of the reasons I like it so much, it hasn't succumb to the overwhelming torrent of SJW agendas that are put into cartoons nowadays.

>>30467478
No, because everyone wasn't starving.

>>30467478
No. It was a utopian collectivist ideology but it didn't criticize specifically communism. Communists were loudly screeching that
>MY ideology turns into totalitarian oppressive dictatorship with TOTALLY different goals in mind
It's more a general criticism of ideologies which dispense with individualism and human rights for the sake of bringing supposed utopia. Of course all that commies and SJWs see is
>muh nuance
completely failing to see the deeper criticism of the basic assumptions which all these ideologies make.

>>30467478
Also good bait for /pol/

>>30467478
No. Communism isn't about equality, it's about fairness. She was just a psychotic bitch who wanted to force niggas into a utopia where she presides as the only un-equal individual.

She was a true bitch.

File: da363088854fff9134a752f5adbb0e98208f5df4f8edd987c3e37c11338f65f1-pol.jpg (473KB, 2496x1646px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 2496x1646px

>>30467833
>fair
>gets shot for critacising the state

>>30467596
It's obviously a criticism of mindless collectivism, but to say that's representative of any actual ideology or society is ahistorical nonsense.

>>30467833
does that mean that feminism is a low brow form of communism but only exclusively for "women" where instead of overcoming the hierarchy of the class system (usually destroying the frame work of it) it destroys the gender "system" or confines but reversing the end effect and becoming all supreme cucklords of humanity?

File: 1489634839690.jpg (77KB, 744x732px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 744x732px

>>30467847
Every time communism is conflated with state capitalism, a small child chokes on industrial waste.

>>30467884
Feminism is equality(fairness) for women in comparison to the benefits that men "naturally" obtain. They don't have equality(fairness) within their own ranks. Men and women theoretically would still be equal, but there will still be poor men and poor women getting shit on by the 1%. Communism would imply that the women are being treated fairly among even themselves, which would never be the case.

>>30467478
No. It was a homage to Orwell. And in one scene to that Apple 1984 commercial. Thus at most it's an allegory on Stalinism, as Orwell himself was an avowed Marxist who fought with POUM in the Spanish Civil War, and wrote lovingly of the anarcho-communist society the CNT-FAI and POUM were trying to build in Catalonia.

>>30467478
Cultural Marxism specifically

>>30468397
Not an expert on the subject at all, but I heard Orwell struggled with fascist leanings during his life, and wrote 1984 as much as a warning to himself as to others...

>>30467478
>>30467596
>>30467833


Damn I needed this thread
I once met a fan screetching that they were communist and Starlight was too and she should have won and a lot of bullshit like that, insulting me whenever I disagreed.

So it was not communism and that fan's an idiot?

>>30468397
>>30470537
Glimmer's village was a play on Harrison Bergeron, a short story which was written to parody the anti-communist strawman arguments of "equality" that came up in 50's America.

Unfortunately idiots and LARPers think the story and the episode are valid representations of socialist thought since nobody fucking reads anymore.

File: medium-50.png (148KB, 651x600px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 651x600px

>/mlp/ discusses political ideologies in a more coherent way than /pol/ does

File: TwifaceVibrating.gif (71KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 300x300px

>>30467573
The correct answer.

>>30470605
Casual reminder that the free market is making socialism an inevitable necessity through automation. <|^:)

>>30470637
Maybe I should check out what /mlpol/ is up to these days...

Just letting you know up front because whatever happens, I'm holding you directly responsible.

>>30467494
Ponies sure like doing that salute

File: waves_lightly.gif (2MB, 820x896px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 820x896px

>>30470963
let us know how it goes, darling

>>30467886
Communists deserve death.

File: 8f50a35ea434eb33457be8e8cf686bd417882aee.jpg (60KB, 500x550px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x550px

>>30471265
>deserve
Do I have to say it?

>>30471284
>Max Stirner pissed off Marx for saying his revolution was just one state superseding another
>Stirner also says a egotist can believe in whatever he thinks is best for him

>>30467478
no, jonestown

>>30467478
It was an allegory for social justice wraped up in comunist like imagery.

File: VJeJRo0.jpg (245KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1920x1080px

>>30471300
He obviously wasn't a communist, at least in that he has no theoretical roots in communism, but if you're implying he wasn't just as anti-capitalist as any red you've definitely misread him.

>>30471371
He hung out with Marx and Engels before pissing them off

To Max the only sort of government that should work is one people freely associate with.

While Marx was shouting down with the state.
Max would quip down with morals and laws too

I like the morons above bleating the episode was about communism when the whole point of communism is to make everyone equal on as high level as possible, not as low level as they will take.

You know, dear cretins, what system makes everyone equal at the bottom? Capitalism, with rich (who laugh at laws like Starlight did) keeping everyone down with paid propaganda stating that rich need to be even richer to "trickle down" and that you can be rich too, just work hard, never mind they only are rich thanks to inheriting fortune or lucking into it. That town was literal copy/paste of Gilded Age, not that liberturds know what it was or what their dream actually looked like :>

>>30471439
>the whole point of communism is to make everyone equal on as high level as possible
Too bad humanity isn't robots and each human has their own ambitions and dreams

>>30471432
Yes? That's true, but I don't see how that relates to what I was saying.

>>30471463
I studied Communism and other political doctrines in my pHD. I read Marx etc..I get what they MEAN with their idea, but I don't see how it will work from the 2nd to 3rd stage.

Once the Proletariat is the new ruling class..what will make EM resign and make the state slowly decease?

I don't get what will be the PRACTICAL way, I understand the THEORY but I don't see how it is possible to have this major collective push in towards this communistic society wwithout having personal interests influencing it.

As we saw in Russia with Stalin.

The initial ideas of Lenin were immediately changed when the REALITY kicked in. Already in 1917 the Bolsheviks had to change things in their plans because reality won't make it all easy as Marx wrote in his writings, the proletariat isn't a huge hivemind with a common aim, its jusr a bunch of utopistic theories.

Marx was a douche. he called Proudhon and Saint- Louis and Witley "Utopists" when he was an Utopist too.

>>30471491
Meant to reply to >>30471439

>>30471460
That doesn't really address their idea at all. "Everyone wants to do their own thing" does not contradict "everyone should be equal". You're missing a link between those two things.

>>30471491
I mean, I don't think you're wrong. I'm no Leninist, so I have no real disagreements with what you're saying.

>>30471523
>>30471525
rip

>>30471463
He was against all types of governments if the people didn't want to be apart of it.
But Max also believed in might makes right.

>>30471525
>"Everyone wants to do their own thing" does not contradict "everyone should be equal".
That's why people to this day say communism has never really been tried

File: 6218842.jpg (92KB, 743x960px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 743x960px

ITT

>>30471548
It's funny because the Chinese and Soviets had a split on how communism should be implemented.
The communist Vietnamese fought the Maoist and attack the Khmer Rouge because they didn't like their brand of communism.

Funny enough, China started working with the United States because it hated the USSR so much.

>>30471530
Max absolutely did not believe that might makes right. He believed that might makes.
A person who wants to kill another person can only do so if they have ability to. That's not a moral judgement, it's a material observation. Stirner puts no value on either side, he just acknowledges that a thing is only able to exert its will as far as it has the power to.

File: starlight_glimmer_and_the_communists_by_chentheirken-d8ozmxx.jpg (178KB, 1600x916px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1600x916px

>>30467478
Pic related explains it all pretty much

>>30467478
No, it was an allegory of subservience to a powerful centralized authority and of submission of individual identity in the name of unquestioning loyalty to a valorized group affiliation.

Basically a takedown of fascism that the fascists will never notice because they can't see past the equals sign.

>>30471548
Oh, it has been tried plenty of times. They just failed to reach their stated goal (and killed millions of innocents in the process) every time. There's a difference.

That old line you repeated is like saying "Utopia has never been tried".

>>30471668
Stirner proposes that most commonly accepted social institutions—including the notion of State, property as a right, natural rights in general, and the very notion of society—were mere illusions or ghosts in the mind, saying of society that "the individuals are its reality." Stirner wants to "abolish not only the state but also society as an institution responsible for its members."

He advocated egoism and a form of amoralism, in which individuals would unite in 'unions of egoists' only when it was in their self-interest to do so. For him, property simply comes about through might: "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." And, "What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing." He says, "I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!"[6] Stirner considers the world and everything in it, including other persons, available to one's taking or use without moral constraint[7] —that rights do not exist in regard to objects and people at all. He sees no rationality in taking the interests of others into account unless doing so furthers one's self-interest, which he believes is the only legitimate reason for acting. He denies society as being an actual entity: "The conquerors form a society which one may imagine so great that it by degrees embraces all humanity; but so-called humanity too is as such only a thought (spook); the individuals are its reality". (The Ego and Its Own, Tucker ed., p. 329).

>>30471835
Again, I don't know how this relates to what I was saying.

File: ITS_NOT_COMMUNISM_seriously_go_read_Harrison_Bergeron_already_its_only_2183_words_long.png (326KB, 10000x7143px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 10000x7143px

>Ctrl+F cult
>Not one proper hit
Jesus Christ /mlp/, I thought we were finally through with this. It was about cults and psychological manipulation, using the Harrison Bergeron premise as a backdrop. It's more about Scientology-tier sects than any specific political ideology, being about how people can be manipulated into thinking they're doing the right thing when in fact they're worse off than before and become the playchild of some maniac, as well as the structures that this usually entails.
See also >>30470605 and >>30471743.

>>30471980
The part where he says if you can conquer it and hold it it's yours.
In other words "might makes right"
Max Stirner doesn't care about morals or what's "right or wrong"
Quotes directly from his book "the Ego and it's Own" trumps your opinion on what he thinks

Connections of Might makes Right
Amorality
Egotism
Right of Conquest
Moral Nihilism
Law of the Jungle
Might is Right

>>30467478
Communism, feminism and the ultimatum of the leftist ideologue

>>30470871
Actually, that's a point I never considered. Won't matter, the whole shithouse will go up in flames long before that happens.

>>30467478
I hope one of these days they tackle ethnic nationalism.

>>30472326
#MEGA

The whole episode is inspired by 1984 which is about authoritarian regimes in general and not communism.

>>30472356
Larson said this by the way in the react video for it. It even has a reenactment of the 1984 apple ad when they throw the staff of sameness at the cutie mark wall.

>>30472315
It'll happen sooner than you think. Projections state that about 50% of all jobs will be done automatically by machines within the next 10-20 years.

One suggestion is to "solve" the problem with a universal basic income, but I've yet to see anyone address the psychological and social implications. What the fuck do you do with a population of ~50% perpetual NEETs? What, if anything, do you teach kids when half of them will never do anything? Where will people get a sense of purpose and self worth? Why grow as a person when there's no outside pressure to do so? How will relationships between men and women be affected?

My hunch is that we're going to see a lot more bullshit industries pop up that sell meaningless services, more kids are going to jump on the first braindead cause or ideology they can find, and a lot more people are going to give up and either rot away or off themselves. That is, if we don't figure this shit out ahead of time.

I worry, but at the same time I kinda want to see it. This has never happened before in the entire history of the human race, and for better or worse we'll be the ones to face it... and that just fucking blows my mind.

>>30472139
>>30472231
Do you seriously not see the contradiction in saying that Stirner is at once an amoralist while at the same time a supporter of "might makes right"?

Here's better, actually topical quotes:
"Defend yourself, and no one will do anything to you! He who would break your will has to do with you, and is your enemy. Deal with him as such. If there stand behind you for your protection some millions more, then you are an imposing power and will have an easy victory. But, even if as a power you overawe your opponent, still you are not on that account a hallowed authority to him, unless he be a simpleton. He does not owe you respect and regard, even though he will have to consider your might."
(The Ego and His Own)

"Owner and creator of my right, I recognize no other source of right than - me; neither God nor state nor nature...neither divine nor human right.
Right 'in and of itself.' So, without relation to me! 'Absolute right.' So, apart from me! A thing existing in and for itself! An absolute! An eternal right, like an eternal truth!"
(The Unique and Its Property)

"What I called "my right" is no longer a right at all, because right can only be granted by a spirit, whether it is the spirit of nature or that of a species, of humanity, the spirit of God, or that of his sacredness or his highness, etc. What I have without an authorizing spirit, I have without right..."
(The Unique and Its Property)

This differs fundamentally from people who actually posit "might makes right". Stirner says "I make right", if might is my tool then it is de facto right. If it is against me it is not. They wouldn't call it egoism if you had to bow to people tougher than you.

>>30472356
>>30472372
Did Larson actually say "it's not about communism" or did he just say "its inspired by 1984"? Big difference.

File: back in the ussr.jpg (38KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x360px

>>30472834

File: meanings and stuff.jpg (21KB, 608x267px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 608x267px

>>30472834
Also this.

>>30472834
>Do you seriously not see the contradiction in saying that Stirner is at once an amoralist while at the same time a supporter of "might makes right"?

What is might makes right?
The ability to enforce your will with power

Stirner's philosophy is usually called "egoism". He says that the egoist rejects pursuit of devotion to "a great idea, a good cause, a doctrine, a system, a lofty calling", saying that the egoist has no political calling but rather "lives themselves out" without regard to "how well or ill humanity may fare thereby". Stirner held that the only limitation on the rights of the individual is his power to obtain what he desires. He proposes that most commonly accepted social institutions—including the notion of State, property as a right, natural rights in general, and the very notion of society—were mere spooks in the mind. Stirner wanted to "abolish not only the state but also society as an institution responsible for its members."

Might makes right is an aphorism with several potential meanings

>>30473007
Might makes right is a moral assertion. It's different from just "the ability to enforce your will", it is the preemptive and external justification for that enforcement. This is explicitly meaningless to Stirner.
Again, as the quotes I used show, Stirner only ever conceptualized might as a tool of the ego that could be rejected at any moment just as any other mechanism can be rejected. It's much more useful than just about anything else, but it has no value outside of the egoist's utilization of it. This is a clear separation of his thought from the thought of people like social Darwinists, who see might as the standard, ie a spook, that individuals must bend themselves to instead of the other way around.

>>30473326
>Might makes right is a moral assertion.
Like >>30473030 said it has many potential meanings
"I am stronger than you, therefore, I make all the rules."
You're so hooked up on the "moral" meaning when I'm referring to the "enforcing of will through strength" meaning.

Webster's definition is the power to do what you want because no one can stop you.

I know it's hard to grasp but I'm talking about the enforcement of will to further one's own personal agenda(egoism)

>>30473395
To follow up
Here's the link
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/might%20makes/is%20right