If we come from both sides we won't lose on anything.

i suppose that may be true.
honestly, "boomer" individuals may have stood not to recapitulate to capitalism via consumerism by simply reading stirner and becoming aware of how capitalists and the government may try to manipulate them.

the biggest shame is that they recapitulated to capitalism in a smaller time window than the soviet union, and they recapitulated PRETTY HARD to it and very easily at that

so full acceptance of psychoanalysis will lead to catastrophic failure for theft

yet again

That is true, but also completely disregarding psyche of an individual is a common mistake right now in Marxism.

I was into psychotherapy long before becoming Marxist.

It works.

But too many Marxists are disregarding it completely.

so i guess in many ways, being conscious individuals, and remaining conscious anti-capitalists is the best conceivable approach.
i guess it's a good thing we're taking that approach right now

I think there is no primal necessity in consciousness. People may be guided when asleep.

and it is okay to be guided

no shame

what i mean by "conscious individuals" is asserting our own self-determination.
both as individuals and collectives.
the key is to not mind terribly what we cannot fully rationalize or even be aware of.
but do mind it when you can be bothered to do so

I think self-determination is also not a necessity.

One may be determined by another.

then at the very least as collectives with a shared understanding of society and its needs

we can't let others dictate our needs for us, as bernays dictated, and as focus groups dictated

Why not?

i mean not externally.
because if there is no shield against reprogramming, we will suffer a reinstantiation of the 20th century, which ended in defeat.
we can allow those who sympathize with us to guide, but only up to a certain point.
word of mouth would be best, advertizing, not so much

I think an authority may guide you completely. Your thoughts, feelings, words and actions.

i would prefer that authority to be entrusted to those close to me

People who are close to you do not have capabilities to guide you as much as a supreme authority.

but another supreme authority, one you don't have in mind, may intervene, even if i am to assume that the supreme authority of which you speak is infallible

Not true. Majorly only one supreme authority exists in psyche and others are disregarded. This is a main reason it is hard to bring people out of sects.

Affinity to one supreme authority may last ages.

Some sects made thousands of people kill themselves disregarding all other authorities completely.

Including governments, daddy and a psychotherapist

am i correct in assuming that the supreme authority is the ideal itself in that case?

if so, then i don't mind

I think it is more of a replacement of an I in general. Idealization is a main mechanic, yes.

Is complicated. I think affinity to a supreme authority reduces individuals. But also develops them when authority is making it so.

I think we can use both authority and self-determination.

At times we can use a devastating for individual supreme authority.

At another time we may use devastating to society individualism.

And sometimes we can balance.

I think we should not limit our tools.

More tools the better.

Limitations are spooks

How I see it. There are goals and tools.

And nothing in between.