The Right To Be Greedy



This is an egoist critique of what calls itself “communism” and argument for and about an authentic egoist communism. The book is available from and, in this episode I share part of the Preamble and all 12 theses of the Introduction. Published by Ardent Press, The Right to Be Greedy is available with your choice of two cover designs.

The Right to Be Greedy from white cover

The Right to Be Greedy from raspberries cover

There are 28 Comments

I'm sorry, Thecollective, but I had a point here... even if short and repulsive I did express a problem the authors here can't honestly avoid.

You deleted my comment where I expressed my drive for going after pretty girls' butts... which is afaik an expression of greed. i.e. to be seeking the gratification of sexual desires or drives with real-life objects or subjectivities treated as objects.

Is sex drive any different than eating or making money?

If there is greed it is due to an appetite being fed, an appeal or desire for something that we seek to gratify... So if all greed is a right, so is capital accumulation, and so is sexual assault. Nothing else than "might makes right" can legimate it.

Are you scared of this "right to greed" to be exposed for the poor, weak morals it carries, that are also totally in good terms with Ayn Rand's ideology?

I totally agree about greed being a selfish characteristic, whether itsgreed for money, power or butts, all bad. This is personal morality 101,

works better than an asshole haiku, or whatever.

the point of the book is to redefine greed, just as the point of books about how fucked up work is, are redefining work. if you like the socially accepted greed-is-bad definition, good for you. no mind-stretching for you, i guess.
and if you really want to be taken seriously, how about you indicate that you've read more of the book than the title? or is that TOO serious...?

Rand is another author you've never read, judging by your comment.

Don't forget to namedrop Ragnar Redbeard in your next post.

'nother commenter here, the poster HAS read Ayn Rand, I can tell just from the description of the capitalist's disregard for morals which the poster nailed.

(...and not the original anon agreeing with themselves.)

there is nothing in rand about little girl's bottoms. that's your imagination at work.

perhaps you and the original anon (who are definitely, definitely two different people) have something to say about the OP, beyond the title?

To be brief yet broad, Rand is an AnCap, amoral Machiavellian scum who celibrate and confuse greed with having the freedom to exploit others within a suedo-Social-Darwinistic marketplace. And as I said before Anon1 has nailed it.

Rand was specifically *not* an AnCap - she defended a minimal state.

Another anon here, she believed in a laissez faire capitalist community which is not a State, an sooo, the An-(LF)Cap still stands. And her individual anarchism could be borderline narcissist-megalomaniacal, so maybe I should be more descriptive and describe her as a greedy megalomaniacal laissez faire capitalist pig!

Pffft, she not only hated anarchists, she hated the Libertarian party for being too friendly with anarchists.

Anyways though, I see a lot of talk about Rand's amorality which misses the point. She was hyper moralist, just the sort of morality that sees making money legally as civic duty and sleeping in, shoplifting and sharing as unforgivable evil.

she also had some bizarre ideas around "art" and how it played into her ideology.

What they don't say openly about her was that she was a methamphetamine addict for 3 decades, thus the mood springs, not to mention the dystopian objectivity of her own consciousness. In layman's terms, she was a wingnut in an era when wackiness was mistaken as eccentric individualism.

> AnCap


> amoral


> Machiavellian


> having the freedom to exploit others within a suedo-Social-Darwinistic marketplace

Not really

I don't like Rand, but she's preferable to people who get their ideas from reddit then try and tell people how much they know about everything

Here is the actual text, which has fuck-all to do with Ayn Rand's harebrained pseudo-philosophy:

Most of it is the usual unreadable critical theory jargon that the ultra-left is so fond of, but it clearly owes a debt to Paul LaFargue's "The Right to be Lazy". Basically the author is arguing for an enlightened form of "communist egoism", contrasting the narrow selfishness of capitalist society with their idea of a broad selfishness wherein people's strongest personal desire is connection with each other:

"The perspective of communist egoism is the perspective of that selfishness which desires nothing so much as other selves, of that egoism which wants nothing so much as other egos; of that greed which is greedy to love - love being the “total appropriation” of man by man."

I think you've done a full circle here and described tribal society, the total appropriation of man woman child by every man woman child. Its no coincidence that Engels borrowed heavily from anthropological journals describing tribal social arrangement, and this was at the tail end of the Romanticist era. Marx used Engel's imaginative data to formulate his romantic future society of collective communal love.
Communist egoism is a contradiction when ego is defined as self-indulgent narcissism rather that the deeper psychic Dasein autonomous self-awareness.

"Communist egoism is a contradiction when ego is defined as self-indulgent narcissism rather that the deeper psychic Dasein autonomous self-awareness"

Always funny when commies take their concept of an autonomous ego from Nazi philsophers, then not refer to it as contradictory.

But jokes aside... Is the concept of individual self-awareness started with Dasein? I really, really doubt so... and this also sounds like closet Euro civilized chauvinism. Does "the Unique" rings any bell to you?

"Is the concept of individual self-awareness started with Dasein?"
Heidegger was merely redefining the ancient Eastern concept of Zen into a Western translation stripped of all ritualized and religious attachments.
So your question could read -is individual self-awareness started with Zen?- Yes.
There will be Germanphobic hair splitting critics who dispute this, and who forget that 95% of Germans were members of the Nazi party OUT OF CONVENIENCE, and not out of zealous passionate devotion.

But what's been demonstrated already is how Heidegger wasn't just a Nazi by convenience. He was from a conservative background, went fascist during the '30s and remained a flaming antisemite long after the fall of this regime. What was convenient for him was rather to keep his political stance discrete after the war.

I didn't answer your final question. Yes, the Unique does ring a bell, and I believe it hovers somewhere alongside the Dasein sphere of consciousness.
As for your tirade, when I said "95%", I was using the figure as a general rule of thumb, meanìng an overwhelming majority, I mean, I'm not pedantic when it comes to mathematics, BUT I do like to stick to the topic, greed and being consciously aware of ones choices, not the personal beliefs of authors which has nothing to do with non-autobiographical theories they propose.

Does not Zen hold that Reality is selfless (anatman) and that the self is a delusion?

Yes, it does!

AND I'm not talking about the Western liberalized Marxoids but the pure Marxists who had NO place for the races of Africa or the world, his was a white industrialized totalitorian Utopia. That's why I'm always suspicious when the title "communism" or "facism" is mentioned, they are really the same basic structure only differing in methodolofy, but the goal is the same, the loss of individuality.

AND, let the greedy individual face the wrath of the desperate hungry individuals, in an unregulated wilderness. Thus, the greedy shall have to live in fortresses to secure their lust, and therefore become prisoners of their own desires.

It is selfish and greedy to want the unspeakable, unimaginable ecstacy/gratitude of what is (badly) called mystical experience.

It is selfish to want the peace of mind that comes from nonattachment. And the adaptive fitness of knowing what you really need (and don't need).

It is selfish to want to outlive the Collapse, and enjoy a high quality of life in the backwoods.

And yes, it is selfish to expect micro-doses of acid on a daily basis to enjoy a high quality of consciousness in your mental processes, because it negates the self and therefore greed ;)

Microdosing doesn't dissolve the self anyway.
Lately God has been giving me numerous 50ug.-80ug. "hits", and 2 experiences at 250ug. and 150ug. with no LSD at all.

It is helpful to move from stupid selfishness (greed being one form of it) to intelligent selfishness, which is far more limited/reality based.

Stupid selfishness does not work very well in the not very long run, even for those most "successful" at it. Great Depression 2.0 and Collapse will NOT be success stories (especially among the survivors).

As this intelligence becomes more deeply spiritual, the dualism of selfishness/selflessness drops away. God/Buddha Nature is absolutely selfless (anatman). Ah, but it is selfish to want the unimaginable ecstatic gratitude of being in the presence of this.

Add new comment