Tfw you trigger commies so much they write 500 pages trying to undermine your work

Marx never published the German Ideology. Marx's proper response to Stirner is Capital and his shift from "utopian" (humanistic Hegelian) communism to "scientific" (materialistic) communism. Keep in mind, Marx still always held utopian communism to be his ideal so he continued to show sympathies for it in his writings, but stopped arguing for it.

This is the kind of thing I love to read about. I don't know why, but I just like hearing that people in the past also got mad about petty bullshit. One of my favorite stories is how Jefferson and Hamilton's famous rivalry started. Hamilton was at Jefferson's house for whatever reason and Jefferson showed him his collection of paintings. The three most important where potraits of Bacon, Locke, and Newton, all of whom Jefferson considered to be collectively the greatest men who ever lived. Hamilton interjected that Julius Caesar was the true "greatest" and it all went downhill from there. And that's how it all began, arguing about their Veeky Forums husbandos. What a world.

But most Stirner fanboys are commies.

>ancap who got butt blasted when someone told him property is a spook

Are they? Seems to me, ppl just pull the Stirner card when they want to dismiss something wishy-washy and/or be edgy.

See

Stirner was an anrchist
His fanboys are anarchists
Also Stirner was an anticapitalist himself
anarchism=/=communism

Stirner was pro-Stirner.

Egoist is the right term
And egoism has had a lot of influence in anarchism

This sounds gay af desu

stirner wasn't an anarchist at all, in the sense that he didn't want the destruction of the state. he goes into detail explaining how the state and other "spooks" can be extremely useful tools to someone acting within their self-interest. his work is foundational for anarchism, but he is not an anarchist, and only retarded stirner fanboys want anarchy instead of utilizing pre-existing infrastructure to their advantage.

>only retarded stirner fanboys
>Being unable to tell the differnce between pragmatism and egoism and still calling other people retarded
Stirner defended a society of egoists (surprisingly close to anarchism) a society where everyone is equally pushing to achieve their will through cooperation, as the only way to ensure no one would be able to push their interest into someone elses, and making sure that doesnt happens is good for evryone, including you or Stirner.
If you understand Stirners writings as if they were making an apology of pragmatism you are seriously stupid and biased

his society of egoists was hypothetically set within the context of other societies. did you read the book?

It only sounds gay to you because male friendship has been sterilized. At least in America from what I've noticed it's "gay" to be extremely close to other males. Hugging, dancing, and caring deeply about one another is not prevalent in culture anymore. I still like to, but even I've been called gay by my own friends.

Pic unrelated.

>people unironically believe this nonsese.

Stinner was nothing but a troll, a fine shitposter but let's be realistic, all the progress humanity has done is because a group of people worked together for a greater good. The wheel, human rights, the internet you name it. It was the faith on the spooks. The spooks are good.

>progress

Whew boy am I spooked

Yup, i read the ego and its own m8, and i really think you are the one that hasnt read it what you are saying is false, the union of egoist is areplacement for the sate, the society and the current economic system (capitalism or whatever) the ideal society where something close to freedom can be achieved.
You are just a biased pragmatic trying to claim Striner work as something it wasnt, probably you just read the word spook in Veeky Forums and feel cool using it(?)

Stirner advocated for this "greater good" you speak of (Union of Egoists). In fact he said that spooks can be useful in attaining this. The issue is that the "greater good" should be based on self-interest and not on said spooks.

>better chances of survival
>better conditions to reproduce
>better quality of life in general
>le spooks XD

PISS OFF

was meant for

It was a joke. I was replying to your low effort post with a low effort reply. If you had read any Stirner at all you would know your post was retarded. Even if you don't agree with Stirner, you would at least understand that he didn't say

>GET RID OF EVERY SPOOK EVER LETS ALL JUST DO WHAT WE WANT LMAOOO ANARCHY SENPAI

Stirner was NOT against cooperation jeez kinda the oposit

Has anyone in this post actually read Stirner? Or you think you know what he said because you read a meme in Veeky Forums and too it seriously? Jeez
Most of the shit im reading here is just so wrong

Stirner said people should cooperate because cooperation is in people's self-interest and not because of any other reasons. His "ideology" could be interpreted as some sort of anarcho-syndicalism but his works are mostly deconstructing human social expectations and norms than anything else, any interpretation of his works as an "ideology" is entirely headcanon.

>some sort of anarcho-syndicalism
Close but no
Do you know what anarchoindividualism is and was? Stirner didnt define himself as anarchist but his influence in Camus and McQuinn (and to lesser extent even some anarcosocialists) is huuuge
>any interpretation of his works as an "ideology" is entirely headcanon

Sure, but the concept of ideology is greatly criciticed inside anarchism too anarcoindividualists doesnt consider itself to be an ideology for that exact reason
>Stirner said people should cooperate because cooperation is in people's self-interest and not because of any other reasons

So did Kropotkin, Bakunin, or Malatesta all anarchists. In fact any anarchists will telll you the reason people should cooperate is that.

I guess the point is, what do you thought anarchism was? Cause Stirner is one of the main bases of anarchism

"Literally, “if I set my affair on myself” the unique one, then my concern rests on its transitory, mortal creator, who consumes himself, and I may say: All things are nothing to me."

>n-no u!!
just read the book, dude. it's not even long. nowhere does he say that a union of egoists "ought" to replace the state.

If they're 12. Anyone who knows anything about egoism knows "-ists" are nothing more than tools for controlling people.

>all the progress humanity has done is because a group of people worked together for a greater good

Like that time British people killed over 250,000 of their fellow countrymen to decide which monarch would take the throne despite it not mattering at all?

>u more!!! Ive totally read that book, how was it called?
Either you are extremely stupid or you are doing this on pourpose, never said it "ought" please read my comment again. Now if you dont know why I said this you shold probably read the book and stop acting like an edgy kid I have it on a pdf if you are actually interested on Stirner, do you want it?

Have you read Bastiat's exchange of letters with Proudhon?

It honestly reads as if some autistic neckbeard decides to interject with his "superior intellect" only to get slapped down and fly into a meme rage.

Yeah, nah.

Yeah, I hug and even hold hands with my male friends sometimes, but we don't have sex. It's weird. Like girls will sleep together in the same bed and it's not considered gay, but guys generally don't.

>progress
>greater good
>faith

Why does /leftypol/ idolize this guy so much if his philosophy is more in line with anarcho-capitalism than socialism/communism?

anarcho-capitalism isn't in the majority's interest, so it's more in line with communism, which actually is in the majority's interest.

Debatable.

regardless his amiable philanthropic intentions there isn't in the "Ego" a single argument against exploitation of those unable to retaliate against us (for the most excellent reason there can't be one), while justice and morality are accurately dismissed as fictions (although he seems not to notice how convenient it is to lie and manipulate people into believing they have duties towards us)

How fucking spooked are you?
>while justice and morality are accurately dismissed as fictions
>(although he seems not to notice how convenient it is to lie and manipulate people into believing they have duties towards us)
>a single argument against exploitation of those unable to retaliate against us

Enlighten us, fucky.

Its a copy pasta retard.

>Engels even went as far to write poems about Stirner

where to find?

Look at Stirner, look at him, the peaceful enemy of all constraint.
For the moment, he is still drinking beer,
Soon he will be drinking blood as though it were water.
When others cry savagely "down with the kings"
Stirner immediately supplements "down with the laws also."
Stirner full of dignity proclaims;
You bend your willpower and you dare to call yourselves free.
You become accustomed to slavery
Down with dogmatism, down with law.

Henri Arvon, Aux sources de 1'existentialisme Max Stirner (Paris, 1954), p. 14

I think this is the one

"I decide whether it is theright thinginme; there is no right outside me. If it is right for me, it is right. Possibly this may not suffice to make it right for the rest; that is their care, not mine: let them defend themselves. And if for the whole world something were not right, but it were right for me, that is, I wanted it, then I would ask nothing about the whole world. So every one does who knows how to value himself, every one in the degree that he is an egoist; for might goes before right, and that - with perfect right."

now that might explain why those sentients (human and non-human) structurally unable to retaliate are made to suffer excruciatingly by their oppressors who clearly see the pointlessness of morality and justice

>Why does /leftypol/ idolize this guy so much if his philosophy is more in line with anarcho-capitalism than socialism/communism?
What?
An-caps love spooks, such as NAP and private property, Stirner's definition of property flies completely in the face of everything capitalism stands for.

>An-caps love spooks,

So do commies, dipshit.

Never said they didn't retard. Though it's certainly arguable that communism can work with egoism much better than anarcho-capitalism.

>its a /pol/ thinks communism means equality epsiode

There has never been a communist society where workers literally controlled the means of production. It's always been state capitalism and rhetoric about the equality of all men. So communism as practiced by self-proclaimed commies is literally spooky af.

>anarcoindividualists doesnt consider itself to be an ideology
does that stop it from being one?

>So communism as practiced by self-proclaimed commies is literally spooky af.
barely any communists talk about how they practice communism

Doesnt that speak to the futility of the attempt?

Yes? I wouldn't know, I don't claim to believe in the spook of communism.

the moment they wrote anything they lost, stirner is just a shitpost-bait in the form of a philosophy

This, holy shit.

I don't understand how anyone can believe that Stirner's philosophy supports ANY political system or ideology.

And to be honest, I don't see why Stirner isn't just seen as a necessary stepping stone on the way to things like Ernst Junger.

Yeah, so?

>For the moment, he is still drinking beer,
>Soon he will be drinking blood as though it were water.
Honestly, I fucking love this.

Oh look, more proof that /pol/ can't read books

>Stirner was an anrchist

No he wasn't, brainlet.

Brutal

Stirner was not obscure in his time, and he's had resurgencies sporadically since his death. This Siamese fishing market forum revival being a part of one of them.

This is fanfiction tier.