Why Max Stirner philosophy is related with marxism?

He was essentially an anarchist, so he's grouped in with the left, but he considered Marxism (and ideology in general) a "spook".
He was an acquaintance of Engels, but Marx considered him an opponent and wrote a furiously butthurt critique of Stirner's work.

This Stirner meme shit was such a mistake. Literally none of you fags I've seen on here understand it in the slightest.

Leftypol have a crush with him

500 pages of butthurt to be exact

Most them grow out of it by the time they're 25

>lmao dude all human information is actually just fluff in your brain and isn't real in physical reality
>no be a truly woke egoist and only live for yourself but please ignore that the very idea of egoism is also a spook

Also for some reason lefties use these ideas to attack nationalism and traditionalism but ignore that stirner made all that shit to trigger marx and make fun of class politics

WTF...Burn this with fire.

Stirner did and called out marx on his fetishisation of "society", which is also a spook.

Stirner trolled Marx and the other commies legendary hard at a piss up over at Hippel's. Karl was so pissed that he wrote a 800 page reply called Stank Max, but he then didn't publish it because he didn't want to give Max the (You)'s.
Still totally pissed at Max's epic troll he then invented Historic Materialism and ever since Marxists are eternally buttmad at Stirner.

...

I'm an anarchist and I'm 67 years old. Try again.

>I'm an anarchist and I'm 67 years old. Try again.
If you are still anarchist with 67 trying is futile.

True revolutionaries die fighting capitalism, bourgeois.

>fetishisation

So then why do people on the left hold him so much?

I hate /leftypol/ so goddamn much.

"Egoism" is a spook if it's some ideal you need to live up to. If you actually read his book, he's making observations, not telling you to go become an egoist or a "Stirnerist".

i don't understand why the right wing want to appropriate stirner so bad

actually they don't. Commies and left spectrum anarchos dislike him quite a bit.

Because he's a dank mee mee.

He was blonde IRL.

>Don't understand Lefty Humor

youtube.com/watch?v=q3fnwk7AVaw

So, he's just a meme to them?

WE

Is that what leftypol considers "memes". Its just i dont know......... shit

Yes. His book is really autistic and verbose, so very few actually read it. They just see the memes with le smoking cartoon calling everything a "spook".

Sieze the memes of production

The image was made to make fun of lefties iirc, but then again I've never seen the source, but that's the context I've always seen it in.

that's the case with any philosopher that becomes mainstream knowledge for autists on a loation pig-breeding forum

>He was blonde IRL.
not true!

Yes, but Stirner is somewhat obscure IRL, so he is almost entirely associated with the memes.

Anarchism by leftypol feat stirner
youtube.com/watch?v=_6YQUcZcP1A

this makes me physically sick

At most Stirner was a socialist. He thought a lot of justification for state and moral institutions were bunk and other high and mighty concepts of nationalism. His views were pretty radical and progressive for the time which is why a lot of left folks like him.

Engels hung around with him in the same group of German intellectuals called the Young Hegelians and indeed he wrote his hair was blond.

Nope, they not even hide it.

youtube.com/watch?v=ye31_M3rxlc

Every labor is to have the intent that the man be satisfied. Therefore he must become a master in it too, i.e. be able to perform it as a totality. He who in a pin factory only puts on the heads, only draws the wire, works, as it were, mechanically, like a machine; he remains half-trained, does not become a master: his labor cannot satisfy him, it can only fatigue him. His labor is nothing 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. For this laborer in another’s service there is no enjoyment of a cultivated mind, at most, crude amusements: culture, you see, is barred against him. [...]

The laborers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once became thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing would withstand them; they would only have to stop labor, regard the product of labor as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labor disturbances which show themselves here and there.

The State rests on the — slavery of labor. If labor becomes free. the State is lost.

meme material

Calling everything a "spook" means they don't have to refute any arguments.

working for someone else and acting in your own self interest arent mutually exclusive.

Not if you are a lefty

thats right buddy, we just hate good things because we'er evil. Now why don't we go get you some more ice cream huh?

You know you talk to commies right?

You aren't evil, just misleaded.

I think without marx's work, stirner's philosophy is a dead end, though i also think marx's engagement with stirner shaped him in a really profound way.

...

WTF I hate memes now

>secular martyrdom
No, you're the bourgeois, pinko.

>"dead ends are bad"

>leftypol martyrdom

I can't wait for manufacturing to become sophisticated enough that workers can be readily replaced and all these retarded theories of labor go away. If capital becomes the only relevant factor in production I can't imagine any way you could take a bigger shit on communism

Communists would love if what you just described actually happened.

This.

>humanists
Eat shit, trashrat.

Well yeah, if it meant just giving free stuff to people who are now out of work. This isn't assuming we've transitioned out of capitalism. I was referring to how labor 'produces' material goods. If everyone is in the service sector or is in a technical profession, the Marxist vision is pretty much totally dead.

desu I got legitimately excited thinking this was actually from some German film about the Young Hegelians.

Marx literally wrote a book that was longer then the entirety of stirners works, to call him a faggot. Guess how much of a "marxist" he was.

>not being a humanist
get your shit together

>people would enjoy working if they were the masters of labor
But that's not true. If labor was truly superior in cases wherein one is the master of their labor (I:E the self-employed artisans, watchmakers, jewelry smiths ect) they would prefer work to vacation and leisure. But in all cases where man employs labor, excepting certain individual outliers, leisure is prefered to labor whenever possible. Man naturally grows fatiuged to labor in all cases. It has nothing to do with anything mentioned.

fpbp

Striner influcence Marx but he was no Marxists.

>posting this without the proper context
It is barely a month after the whole event and already /pol/fags are revising history

Honestly, it's very useful for the Left to have yet another way to deconstruct both people and social relations(e.g calling everything a spook), so they don't have to bother with logic or reason, and simply dig a deeper ideological hole for themselves.

Problem is they don't deconstruct neither themselves nor their own ideology, and they will obviously scream murder at anyone who tries.

He's (somewhat) associated with the Young Hegelians. Marx is among them. However, Marx wrote a longass ad hominem attack on Stiner. Never published though. Probably knew he didn't actually prove Stirner wrong.

His idea of "not letting ideas or habits control you to your detriment" has some traction among certain leftists and even a few on the right. He does advocate killing and eating sacred cows so hardline ideologues anywhere on the political spectrum hate his guts. It's somewhat self-contradictory on its face so it lacks mainstream appeal.

>pretending a meme created by /pol/ is created by /leftypol/
Either you are willfully ignorant or actually deceptive

>implying that Striner never shit on his fellow Young Hegellians by critiquing them
>implying his the Ego and his Own was to denounce almost everyone including Marx
>implying Marx was so butthurt that he wrote Saint Max and adapted communism to his criticisms
Why do right wingers like to talk about things they don't know shit about?

What makes you think I'm a right-winger?

Also, you didn't really respond to my criticisms. Especially Lefty/pol/ almost exclusively use "muh spook" against right-wing people, but they don't do so for themselves, meanwhile the belief in a future materialistic utopia is the definition of a spook.

No, Striner's criticism of private property and statism is something almost every leftists can agree with.

Plus dank memes though

Because you were critiquing the Left without any real knowledge of it. Are you perhaps a radical centrist?

>but they don't do so for themselves
They do? The anarchists and socialists has never advocated their ideology of it being right or scared, but as means to escape or prevent exploitation.

>meanwhile the belief in a future materialistic utopia is the definition of a spook.
Wew lad. A spook is an abstraction the ego places above its interest. 'A future materialistic utopia' is in the ego's interest to help create, which lefties do want (instead of beleiving in it as you said). Of course there is always the danger of having that desire taking precedence above ego, but that doesn't mean it is inherently spooky.

>The anarchists and socialists
My bad only anarchists, socialists can be pretty spooked though

>The anarchists and socialists has never advocated their ideology of it being right or scared

Shut the fuck up fagtron. They wouldn't advocate for it if they didn't believe it was the highest moral good.

Whether or not they believe it was the moral thing is highly irrelevant when their persuasion and arguments is rooted in exploitation and conflict of interests. Propaganda posters usually convince workers by appealing to their interests instead of morality.

I will give you christian socialists though

>Striner's criticism of private property
Stirner wasn't against private property per se. He's against public enforcement of private property, e.g. the government through force of arms enforces property rights. "If you can seize it and defend it, it's yours" doesn't sit well with many leftists.

>Whether or not they believe it was the moral thing is highly irrelevant when their persuasion and arguments is rooted in exploitation and conflict of interests

It's not irrelevant because it assumes that exploitation is morally wrong, if it isn't morally wrong, there's no reason to change anything.

And the extremely morally and culturally relativistic leftists are welcome to prove how it is morally wrong.

Yes and that forms that basis of anarchism.

>doesn't sit well with many leftists
Yes I agree that is why i only said they agree with his critiques because his solutions is not widely accepted. But then again the Left seems united in their criticisms of stuff but divided on the solutions to fix said stuff so that is just par for the course.

>exploitation is morally wrong
But nobody (or at least the OG anarchists and socialists) made the argument that exploitation is moral wrong but rather a flaw of the system that needed to be fixed. If anything it was Striner who shat on such moralistic arguments made by anyone, left or right

It's not a flaw if it works.

I'm sorry, but you're not going to fool me with your historicism, Marxist.

Your arguments are moralistic, deal with it.

It worked better than feudalism no doubt, but socialism (or anarchism) will work better.

>I'm sorry, but you're not going to fool me with your historicism, Marxist.
Looks like someone is mad

Even if exploitation could be considered morally wrong, it would be considered so because it impedes upon the ego of individuals. An egoist therefore will fight systems that exploit him and encourage others exploited by the same system to join him in his fight. This is working in his own interest.

A moralist may fight systems exploiting him but he would also take issue with systems exploiting only others.

An egoist may also take issue with systems exploiting only others and not himself, if he believes that the exploitation has indirectly affected him - made his community poor and crime ridden for example - this may negatively impact his well being.

> but socialism (or anarchism) WILL work better.
why you are pretty sure your collective utopia will not break because self interest of individuals or groups, how you can stop this to happen if you don't use coercion to maintain union?

>Using zizek to support anarchism

Why you don't use stalin then, you anarchist put gladly your neck to the marxist for sacrifice in the name of purest ideology and antirevisionism?

youtube.com/watch?v=uwUDEOAxLlc

Sounds like an extreme gerrymandering of the definition of an egoist, and just coincidentally justifies Marxist theory.

>would you chose bad poo poo
>or... good lots of nice world?

checkmate capitalism.

What the left fail to "digg" about Stirner and Nietzsche is that while they rejected the church and nationalism, etc. they still understood that hierarchy and coercive social structures were inevitable and even to be desired for the masses. Stirner and Nietzsche didn't want to "liberate" the mass of semi-literate plebs or raise them up. They would laugh in the faces of communists and left-anarchists, at their naivete and sentimentality.

Egoism can be gerrymandered to fit any ideology. If you truly understand and believe in the personal utility of the power structures inherent to fascism you can be an egoist fascist. It's the same as using existentialism to fit any moral view - which works because existentialism is inherently amoral, just as egoism is inherently anti-ideology.

Egoism and existentialism are frameworks for subjectively understanding specific ideological and moral issues/structures/etc.; they do not provide answers themselves.

That said, egoism takes a critical perspective on power structures which will generally lead to supporting ideologies like Marxist ideology which are also critical of power structures.

>shifting goalposts this hard
We talking about whether socialists and anarchists appeal to morality, not muh true socialism senpai

Dude, I have been talking how anarchists AND socialists are not appealing to morality. I am not actually supporting or advocating anarchism ITT. Learn to read you stupid nigga

Preaching to the choir senpai. Would have been nice to see if Striner approved or disapproved fellow anarchists though

>posting this without the proper context

What, the youtube cancer war? yes the heroic struggle between two cringy memes channels for supremacy.

Its in my own self interest to pay my bills

to do this I need money

your mother pays me to fuck her asshole every Wednesday

thats all within my self interest

>two cringy memes channels for supremacy.
Confirmed for not knowing shit about it, although it was cringy. At least the aesthetics that came out from it were good

Oh you got my comrade, you are too intelligent for my machiavellian schemes. but really you don't have a answer to my question? also I disagre about the left no appealing to moral, the left has adopted the anti-Aristotelian and anti-western view that a thing has to be good from start to finish for a thing to be moral in and of itself. The logic goes: Self-interest is greed, greed is bad and therefore feeding people and bringing stability to the world is morally bad because the initial motivation was selfish. Ergo saving people from starvation and misery is actually immoral as far as markets are concerned. Ideological purity is more important than results.

>copy-edit alt-right memes in a nice tankie style to support anrkidies youtube channel.

For my concern, both worth a shit, but comparing this with some kind of serious ideological struggle is go too far in autism.

it would be impossible for him to be an advocate for communism since communism demands the sacrifice of the self for the greater good of all which is simply the opposite of egoism.