>tfw you trigger commies so much they write 500 pages trying

File: 1478192834328.jpg (229KB, 1096x719px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1096x719px

>>1916817
>triggering commies
Nothing wrong there.
Could someone brief me on the one sentence summary of Stirner's philosophy?

>>1916838
You are a spook

>>1916838
>Ideas have no authority behind them, nevermind precedence over self-interest
But obviously that statement undermines itself, so in one word it's just a form of deconstruction.

>>1916838
'Read the book'

>>1916817

Did Stirner have any views on economics?

Also, Stirner seems like he was a pretty obscure guy even when he was alive. What would make them go through the effort of even trying to take him down?

>>1916870
That's just how much BTFO they were, can you even imagine?

>>1916870
He frequented the same cafe club as Marx and Engels.

>>1916870
Marx got jealous because Engels was Marx's best friend, but then Engels suddenly started taking a liking to Stirner, having Stirner model for Engels for his drawings, and Engels even went as far to write poems about Stirner. Clearly Marx did not take kindly to this.

In the end, Marx realized Stirner was right and restructured his philosophy to be compatible, but extend beyond Stirner's ideas.

I haven't read Marx's rebuttal, and I have no desire to because I'm firmly aware that Stirner's work has no weakness to exploit. My assumption is that it's a series of articulately designed strawman arguments, that's what I would do in Marx's position, and it would explain the length of the rebuttal. I doubt Marx thought Stirner was wrong, but Marx had his reasons for his work on communism that are separate from trying to be correct.

>>1916894
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.

>>1916874
>>1916889

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 /his/ husbandos. What a world.

But most Stirner fanboys are commies.

>>1916926
>ancap who got butt blasted when someone told him property is a spook

>>1916926
Are they? Seems to me, ppl just pull the Stirner card when they want to dismiss something wishy-washy and/or be edgy.

>>1916932
See >>1916931

>>1916926
Stirner was an anrchist
His fanboys are anarchists
Also Stirner was an anticapitalist himself
anarchism=/=communism

Stirner was pro-Stirner.

>>1916960
Egoist is the right term
And egoism has had a lot of influence in anarchism

>>1916889
This sounds gay af desu

File: unknown.png (1MB, 1033x1072px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1033x1072px

>>1916959
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.

>>1917022
>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

>>1917081
his society of egoists was hypothetically set within the context of other societies. did you read the book?

File: 1386984626664.png (112KB, 841x730px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 841x730px

>>1916988
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.

>>1917124
>progress

Whew boy am I spooked

>>1917106
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 4chan and feel cool using it(?)

>>1917124
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.

>>1917132
>better chances of survival
>better conditions to reproduce
>better quality of life in general
>le spooks XD

PISS OFF

>>1917141
was meant for
>>1917124

>>1917143
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

>>1917124
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 4chan 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.

>>1917194
>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

>>1916838

"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."

>>1917139
>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.

>>1916926

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

>>1917124

>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?

>>1917280
>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?

>>1916920
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.

>>1916926
Yeah, nah.

>>1917108
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.

>>1917124
>progress
>greater good
>faith

>>1916817
Why does /leftypol/ idolize this guy so much if his philosophy is more in line with anarcho-capitalism than socialism/communism?

>>1917367
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.

>>1917373
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)

>>1917545
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

>>1917185
Enlighten us, fucky.

>>1917881
Its a copy pasta retard.

>>1916889
>Engels even went as far to write poems about Stirner

where to find?

>>1917980

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

>>1917367
>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.

>>1920139
>An-caps love spooks,

So do commies, dipshit.

>>1920264
Never said they didn't retard. Though it's certainly arguable that communism can work with egoism much better than anarcho-capitalism.

>>1920264
>its a /pol/ thinks communism means equality epsiode

>>1920288
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.

>>1917242
>anarcoindividualists doesnt consider itself to be an ideology
does that stop it from being one?

>>1920322
>So communism as practiced by self-proclaimed commies is literally spooky af.
barely any communists talk about how they practice communism

>>1920322
Doesnt that speak to the futility of the attempt?

>>1920359
Yes? I wouldn't know, I don't claim to believe in the spook of communism.

>>1916817
the moment they wrote anything they lost, stirner is just a shitpost-bait in the form of a philosophy

>>1917407
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.

>>1917545
Yeah, so?

>>1917983
>For the moment, he is still drinking beer,
>Soon he will be drinking blood as though it were water.
Honestly, I fucking love this.

>>1916838
Oh look, more proof that /pol/ can't read books

>>1916959
>Stirner was an anrchist

No he wasn't, brainlet.

>>1920630
Brutal

>>1916870
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.

>>1916889
This is fanfiction tier.