Why does Leftypol like Max Stirner so much?

You have homework to do comrade

We needed our own meme. Porky wasn't cutting it.

Johann Kaspar Schmidt was indeed a real person, he had a gravestone and everything.

Yeah he has a great philosophy, read him.

No idea
No.

Sympathy for leftist ideas and class consciousness can only truly arise when one comprehend that leftism it's the only path that leads to one self best interests. By ending exploitation you are freeing yourself, even if you are on the side of the exploiters.

________________________[spoiler]no_[/spoiler]

He was essentially a proto-fedoramancer, complete with pseudo-philosophical bullshit. His one redeeming feature is having a great figure of speech.

Socrates plus Benzedrine imo

He's useful when trying to abolish idpol to establish class consciousness, but some people go a bit far with him trying to abolish all morality and end up sounding like this

...

lol stay spooked fag

not an argument

There's nothing to "abolish"; morality is inherently a spook, it's not so much abolishing as it is ignoring the fixed ideas others hold so dear

Try again

guess why Marx got so butthurt at stirner?

Explain how class conciousness is a spook. This oughta be good.

Class consciousness is the idea that the proles will undoubtedly rise against the bourgeoisie and stablish socialism, this is a fucking spook

Class struggle =/= class consciousness

Nigger you what. Class conciousness just means being aware of your relationship to the means of production. What you just described is the "dictatorship of the proletariat."

Lmao, literally read stirner, class consciousness is a spook, the material reality that exist on a class based society doesnt mean I have a historical role to follow, just because you are aware of a system of class doesnt mean you have to act against it if it doesnt satisfy your ego, I dont have to acknowledge class struggle unless my ego wants to

No it still wouldn't be a spook because that's not a values judgement, it's a prediction. It can be WRONG but it wouldn't be a spook. (but yeah you're totally using the wrong definition of class consciousness.)

Nice going completely ignoring my post dumbass
This was never stated. Are you retarded or just have no reading comprehension?

wtf i hate borders and property rights now

Lol spooks!

There are pople who do not accept the notion of class consciousness, they dont do it because it is against their will

>>>/out/

How to shut down Holla Forums weenies in one word.

You can disagree with things without those things being spooks.

Hi there my friend.
Tbh , i think Stirner himself wrote realy bad. Me myself i don't believe all this class stuff 'cause it's just so plain imaginary. Class, etnicity, the state, any social group can of course be IMAGINED as a being like on the cover of Hobbes leviathan, but that doesn't make it any more real. The worse is that the more people believe class, race , the state or whatever collectivity to be real the more danger it poses to the actualy material individuals they live with. Such is the faith of a spooked humanity….
As a sociologist i actualy think of Stirner as some kind of precursor of the thomas theorem (If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences) .
Pic related, obvious spook is obvious spook.

What makes you think there's an argument to be had? It was a statement of fact to answer OP and nothing but.

Everytime someone defends stirner they make me want to read stirner less.

He spits pure fire

He triggers fascist and nationalist

How to trigger nationalist and fascist.

Not many people here have read stirner or any theory

The ego and his property is a good book, and i think stirner's concept of boy-youth-man is a very dialectical point of view, albeit he doesn't word it as such. I also believe that for any leftist revolution to be viable, it has to be a union of egoists.

Moralism was injected into leftist theory by m-l propaganda, marx realized and clearly stated that each class will act on it's own self interest. That is also why most ultra-lefts say that socialism in unattainable atm, as it's not in the majority's self-interest to wage open class warfare at risk of death

I also believe that the reason the ussr fell was exactly this, it wasn't a union of egoists. When the true communists were purged off and got replaced by pro-stalin beaurocrats with no strong ideological leaning, the system started to corrode simple because the average joe wasn't despooked enough to realize the ussr is in his benefit and simple let the gorbachev era party take it down without a fight. Now if 70% of the population was despooked and class-conscious, they'd lynch gorbachev and yeltsin in the street

it's good but i get the feeling a lot was lost in translation

yes, there is a valuable lesson in his work

anarchists are retarded and you should move on becoming a marxist

as if you would know anything about that

The latter here is pure conjecture or a type of reading from the resident Holla Forums shitposters who claim that egoism and individualism can gel with movements like communism through an interpretation of self-interest, though. The idea goes that since the movement of communism embodies the proletariat's innate material desire to break free of being slaves to exchange with their labor and its produce not being instead directed towards personal use, communism embodies this category of "self-interest", but it appears to conflict directly with the fact that communism is radically emancipatory as a movement and is in fact in practice a movement of pure collective sacrifice towards a common good. This is probably while despite rejecting communism in his time, he came up with the idea of egoist unionism: that only an organization of individuals completely organized along the lines of their own consensuses could properly abide by the principles of egoism.

I think Stirner's pretty interesting and he pushed Marx's buttons just by existing in the Young Hegelians, but many of his ideas are better interested in the context a purely material interpretation, which will reveal a much more refined argument for something we may also call self-interest.

I was reading one of Peter Kropotkin's (famous ancom) pamphlets wherein he tried to justify why communism would work against the accusation that it went against human nature. His central argument was that communism works because humans have an innate moral inclination towards solidarity and cooperation with other human beings. Marxists reject this justification – arguments about human nature don't interest us. The workers must struggle selfishly in order to destroy capitalist social relations.

There's nothing altruistic about it, nor need there be. In a new social configuration it is not innate altruism that will drive human action but simply the fact that the current distinction between individual interests and collective interests is really one that only emerges under certain modes of production, and then this "individual" interest, especially under older class societies, will always be subject to either a law of value under capitalism or the law of the sword under feudalism.

This shows that, really, any individual under capitalism producing and allocating labor for market exchange is doing so not because he primarily wants to, but because he's a slave to the law of value, which in turn will tend to shape his human mind into believing that he is doing what he does entirely as an autonomous subject, when he can not but follow the confines of the market or crash the social commons he depends on and ultimately his own.

the translation im reading provides many terms in original german

it reads good regardless, i just feel that he tries to make the text a lot more "poetic" than it has to be

or he can become a hoxhaist revisionist like you

You can get shot in the face and claim it's a spook, it won't stop you from bleeding out. You'll die whether or not you believe in bullets.

class is your relationship to the means of production, again, things exist whether you believe in them or not. Why don't you go claim to be the emperor of the US and and see how well that works out for you?

Ok well at least you admit it.

There is, but very few people here understand him, and like him/dislike him based on meme understanding (quite literally, they get their understanding from memes and 2 line posts)

Stirner is using Hegelian philosophy to show its absurdity, he is a classic subjectivist. In that respect he's a lot like Kierkegaard.

Marx probably took a lot of influence from Stirner. Idiot-Engels used to be enamoured with him, and was quite shocked by Ego and Its Own. You could say they got spooked,That was a joke, you really couldn't

Basically Marx and Engels passed off his work as "uh well it's in the working class' interest to make socialism happen" and did a huge sperg over it in German Ideology. Like it's hundreds of pages of autistic screeching. Not even kidding. Just read German Ideology, don't take my word for it.

Is it worth reading? It's a hard read, but maybe. I'd say Kierkegaard is better for subjectivism, but Stirner is okay I guess

The difference is a bullet is a material reality, class consciousness isnt, there is a difference ebwteen understanding what a class system is, a material reality, and beliving this has to change, a spook

I want it to change because of my own free will, not because of spooky concepts invented by Marx

Class consciousness ID the understanding of the material reality. There is ALSO a prediction about what this will lead to which can be correct or incorrect, but is not a judgement about what SHOULD be done and thus not a spook.

class consciousness is the perception of material reality, it isn't a spook but an understanding

Class consciousness according to Marx implies the proletariat and the bourgeoisie have different class interest in mmd, and therefore class consciousness, and the desire to abolish it thqt comes along with it that only come from the proletariat

According to Marx the proletariat will, as a historical inevitability, achieve class consciousness, and this is a spook

which they do, like any other person that looks out for his interests, aka an egoist

class consciousness doesn't mean you belong in a class, but that you are conscious of the your relationship to the means of production. you can be a class conscious bourgeoisie

yes, because the proletariat is the only class that has any benefit from the abolition of capitalism.

that's not what a spook is. you should really read stirner before stirnerposting.

and yes, the proletariat will achieve class consciousness or humanity will be destroyed simply because capitalism isn't sustainable.

try again bucko

your relationship with the means of productions is a material reality. class is just a quantification to measure said relationship

"It will rain tomorrow" isn't a spook regardless of whether it ends up being correct or incorrect. Predictions are not spooks.