LordCompost (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
LordCompost (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I am yet to understand the necessity of communism for 'insurrection' | I am yet to understand the necessity of communism for 'insurrection' | ||
Additionally, I have yet to understand how Stirner's notion of 'Empörung' is even utilised in this theory. You seem to have eluded to it simply by the 'lived process' - but Stirner's | Additionally, I have yet to understand how Stirner's notion of 'Empörung' is even utilised in this theory. You seem to have eluded to it simply by the 'lived process' - but Stirner's 'rising up' (not uprising) is not a "process" of anything, certainly not the de-subjectification of the proletariat. | ||
Also, why is the proletariat the universal subject that must be de-subjectified? Obviously, because everyone labours, just as everyone is human (one would have to ask themselves whether a brain-dead vegetative patient labours). | Also, why is the proletariat the universal subject that must be de-subjectified? Obviously, because everyone labours, just as everyone is human (one would have to ask themselves whether a brain-dead vegetative patient labours). | ||
Latest revision as of 05:10, 16 January 2024
I am yet to understand the necessity of communism for 'insurrection'
Additionally, I have yet to understand how Stirner's notion of 'Empörung' is even utilised in this theory. You seem to have eluded to it simply by the 'lived process' - but Stirner's 'rising up' (not uprising) is not a "process" of anything, certainly not the de-subjectification of the proletariat.
Also, why is the proletariat the universal subject that must be de-subjectified? Obviously, because everyone labours, just as everyone is human (one would have to ask themselves whether a brain-dead vegetative patient labours).
I am not denying you have answers or a coherent thought. I ask questions because I think you can answer them. Thanks, LordC.