Why do people call Stirner an anarchist? Stirner was not an anarchist

Not even close. There's some fairly vociferous shitposters here, but Stirner isn't quite as central to the local culture as either of them.

Also being in favour of Stirner's ideals isn't typically paired with historical revisionism around here.

Egoism is more of a philosophy of life than a political view. But if everyone were to be an egoist some kind of anarchist socialism would be the only feasible system.

Nah, Stirner is more like the patron-saint of Veeky Forums or /leftypol/. Veeky Forums still has yet to settle into a common board culture.

>"""Libertarian"""
>"""Socialist"""

>patron saint

So, would you call him Saint Max?

It's mostly a Veeky Forums meme. Veeky Forums is the inbred son of Veeky Forums and /pol/, raised by /int/.

If private property is a spook, why isn't the non-existence of property a spook too?
I mean, it makes sense that private property is a spook if you are a worker, but if you own a store or a factory, the "muh property is a spook" sounds like a spook itself keeping you from benefitting yourself.

He's right though

>anarchist socialism

You mean a society where everyone voluntarily agrees to not invest money or own a productive enterprise?

>He doesn't know "libertarian" was originally, and often continues to be, a term for non-authoritarian socialists.

Just fucking cite the sentence where Stirner says he is a socialist

Stirner died before Socialism was even a recognized movement.

Well Stirner wasn't a socialist then

nor an anarchist

You have completely misunderstood. Property is a spook in the sense of other people, respecting other people's property "rights".
The money in the OP is Stirner's property because he has taken it. If you exert power over something then it is your property, all things are your property if you will them to be.

>if a philosophers ideas have all the characteristics of a certain ideology but he doesn't identify with that ideology that means he isn't part of it

More like a society where everyone consciously agrees that private property is a spook.

Yeah, you clearly don't understand Stirner

>"non-authoritarian" socialists
>This is what socialists actually believe.

Please actually read before posting next time, okay?

C L E A R L Y
L
E
A
R
L
Y

>Now, on the contrary, when every one is to cultivate himself into man, condemning a man to machine-like labor amounts to the same thing as slavery. If a factory-worker must tire himself to death twelve hours and more, he is cut off from becoming man. Every labor is to have the intent that the man be satisfied. [...] His labor is nothing taken by itself, has no object in itself, is nothing complete in itself; he labors only into another's hands, and is used (exploited) by this other.

>"non-authoritarian" socialists
Uh yeah. That's why they're anarchists.

Yes, and the anarchists during the Spanish civil war were so non-authoritarian and definitely not totalitarian genocidal monsters. All far-leftists are the same, whether they call themselves anarchists, socialists, or communists.

Imma just leave this here

I'm pretty sure the term "anarchist" had already been coined by Proudhon, dunno if it was popular yet though.

>genocidal
Who exactly did they "genocide"? Are you triggered by the fact that war is violent?

Ah, yes. Anarcho syndicalist CNT and north korean totalitarianism, i can barely tell the difference. You have opened my eyes.

They never gained as much total control as the north koreans so of course if they must fight the fascists that leaves fewer men to destroy their own people.

So you do not even deny their crimes you just accept them as part of building a new order, one that leaves no room for the individual. It's really ironic how much governing these so called anarchists did.

"The courts of law were supplanted by revolutionary tribunals, which dispensed justice in their own way. 'Everybody created his own justice and administered it himself,' declared Juan Garcia Oliver, a leading Anarchist who became minister of justice in November 1936. 'Some used to call this "taking a person for a ride," [paseo] but I maintain that it was justice administered directly by the people in the complete absence of regular judicial bodies.'"[7] This distinction no doubt escaped the thousands of people who were murdered because they happened to have political or religious beliefs that the Anarchists did not agree with. "'We do not wish to deny,' avowed Diego Abad de Santillan, a prominent Anarchist in the region of Catalonia, 'that the nineteenth of July brought with it an overflowing of passions and abuses, a natural phenomenon of the transfer of power from the hands of privileged to the hands of the people. It is possible that our victory resulted in the death by violence of four or five thousand inhabitants of Catalonia who were listed as rightists and were linked to political or ecclesiastical reaction.'"[8] De Santillan's comment typifies the Spanish Anarchists' attitude toward his movement's act of murder of several thousand people for their political views: it is a mere "natural phenomenon," nothing to feel guilty over.

they call him an anarchist because he influenced alot of anarchists

>So you do not even deny their crimes you just accept them as part of building a new order, one that leaves no room for the individual.
lol. Sorry, but I'm not Big Brother. I simply don't believe in private property, only personal property. In my perfect society, you can be free to be an individual all you want.

Fuck off Stirner is Veeky Forums's. Also Zizek. IT IS OURS FIRST, DON'T TOUCH

Nice of you to rip a paragraph from Wikipedia lol. You must really be an expert on Revolutionary Catalonia.

Again? Where is the so-called genocide? Cause all I see is violence, which is typical in wartime.

Can you name even a single war that didn't bring with it abuses and violence? It shouldn't be hard, I'm sure your good capitalist nations would never-ever commit war crimes right?

>people die in wartime
>genocide
You sure about that senpai?

How wonderful that your ideal society allows anyone to be an individual. If only it where also true that any real anarchist movement thought the same

Nice way to change the subject I have some more quotes from real anarchists that show their devotion to liberty.
Solidaridad Obrera soon wrote in favor of the strictest discipline:

"'To accept discipline means that the decisions made by comrades assigned to any particular task, whether administrative or military, should be executed without any obstruction in the name of liberty, a liberty that in many cases degenerates into wantonness.'"

To counter this move towards a national army, explains Bolloten, "The CNT-FAI leaders had proposed in September 1936 that a 'war militia' be created on the basis of compulsory service and under the joint control of the CNT and the UGT..."

>read text
>get to the "nothing to feel guilty over" part
>jeez, this doesn't sound very neutral, let's look this up on google to see where it is from
>it's from econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm
>essay titled "The Anarcho-Statists of Spain"
>"In the spirit of F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom , I dedicate this essay to anarcho-socialists of all factions."
>:^)
Very objective, my friend.
The fact is, a few thousand dead people in the middle of a revolution that happens in the context of a war is extremely tame, especially compared to any other event of this kind of this time.
On the other hand, the term "totalitarianism" has completely different implications, you'd have to argue about how the social organization was totalitarian, and you'll have a pretty hard time. Totalitarian means nothing in the context of your quote.
In any case, if you are going to mindlessly spew information from right "libertarian" blogs, as you people usually do, just paste the link so i don't waste my time discussing with a drone and just read the author arguments.

The quotes are form a democratic socialist who documented the various crimes of the anarchists, or they are from actual members of the anarchist movement. Dismiss them if you want just know that pretending totalitarianism is libertarianism doesn't fool anyone anymore.

>"'To accept discipline means that the decisions made by comrades assigned to any particular task, whether administrative or military, should be executed without any obstruction in the name of liberty, a liberty that in many cases degenerates into wantonness.'"
>To counter this move towards a national army, explains Bolloten, "The CNT-FAI leaders had proposed in September 1936 that a 'war militia' be created on the basis of compulsory service and under the joint control of the CNT and the UGT..."

Are you really expecting an inchoate society with fascists banging on their door to behave perfectly and be idealistic? Again none of the quotes you just brought up are particularly damning.

Nothing stated in those quotes was any worse than what capitalists have done to their citizens, so again I ask where is the genocide?

What did Revolutionary Catalonia do that capitalists haven't done? Tell me capitalist

You are retarded. First because you use the word totalitarian when you obviously don't know what it means. But i shouldn't be surprised since you right wing "libertarians" seem to transform every political word you come across into newspeak. And second because of your mindless repeating of propaganda. But again, i shouldn't be surprised that someone that equates "machine-like labor" (as stirner calls it) with free work also believes that this mindless repetition is an argument.

I have nothing against the quotes though, they were fighting fascism.

copyright laws are le spookxD

>angry mob with guns
vs
>angry mob with guns

>composition fallacy

>fallacy fallacy

Mandatory

Stirner got the money for the milk shop from his wife. I also find it funny people thought they were too shitty to buy milk from there.

lol

>it's a nationalist shills spin the anti-Republican argument into a moral one while completely ignoring what franco and co. did episode
ah epic