Is he right? Does /lit/ know the source of Marx being afraid

literally tl;dr but Marx never actually met Stirner he only knew him through Engels so I don't see why he would be afraid of him when Marx was in England and Stirner was in Germany

>>8298890
Not physically but his work and thoughts I assume.

>>8298879
Stirner was and is a non-entity. He still is. No one except this board gives a shit about him

>>8298970
Because he is a threat.

>>8298879
Why don't you read the section of The German Ideology that Marx spent trying to refute Stirner?

There's no evidence that Nietzsche was ever aware of Stirner fwiw.

>>8298970
Marx and Engels gave a shit about him.

>>8298970
>marx spends hundreds of page on non-entity

>>8298999
he spends thousands on non-entity
'exploitation', 'surplus value', and 'LTV'

>>8298995
>It is certain that Nietzsche read about Stirner's book The Ego and Its Own (Der Einzige und sein Eigentum, 1845), which was mentioned in Lange's History of Materialism (1866) and Eduard von Hartmann's Philosophy of the Unconscious (1869), both of which young Nietzsche knew very well.[
It seem he would have been at least aware of him.

>>8298879
>is he right?
>Nazism flows most definitely from his ideas

No, he is not right. He probably hasn't even read Nietzsche

>>8299021
stirner was only referenced for a paragraph in lang

>>8299073
>Nietzsche discovered Lange's book immediately after its appearance and praised it as "the most important philosophical work in decades" (letter to Hermann Mushacke, mid November 1866); as to Hartmann, who was also developing the ideas of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche singled out his book in his second Untimely Meditation for a caustic criticism, and concentrated on precisely the chapter dealing with Stirner, though he did not once mention Stirner's name; Hartmann wrote: ""Nietzsche does not mention at any place the name of Stirner or his writings. That he must have known my emphatic hint to Stirner's standpoint and its importance in the 'Philosophy of the Unconscious' arises from his polemic criticism of exactly that chapter which it contains. That he did not see himself prompted by this hint to get acquainted more closely with this thinker so congenial with himself is of little plausibility."

>>8299088
Nietzsche kept a pretty intense record of every book he bought and we know all of the libraries he frequented, from these records there is no evidence that he came into contact with the ego and its own. None of the people who actually knew him ever remember him bringing up Stirner. He never mentions Stirner by name in any of his works, published or unpublished. He wrote about almost everything and everyone he read, it seems preposterous to assume he was just so embarrassed by the presence of Stirner that he refused to acknowledge him, especially considering the glee he voiced in letters upon discovering Spinoza who shared many of his sentiments.

There's not much evidence that he even read anything by Marx either, and his reading of Hegel may have been either through secondary sources or was done overly quick as Kaufmann rightly points out in his translation of the gay science.

Furthermore the philosophies of the two, while they share some broad patterns, diverge radically on most peripheral points and some of the big ones. They are both anti-philosophers and destructive thinkers, I think those are the two core uniting themes. Nietzsche is a better writer and 'hammers' his points home better than Stirner. If anything, Nietzsche should be the one who is suppressed if there is some conspiracy against dangerous thinkers. Nietzsche proudly admitted that his thoughts incite illness and lead to extreme danger.