Isn't stirner, and individualists, just anarcho capitalists ?

ftfty

Did you actually listen to the audiobook on librivox? I reccomend actually reading it. You need to see the usage of all the grammar to really follow along. The audiobook would be 100x better without half of it being read by the worst voice ever from England. And if they actually included the quotes and paren in their readings.

1/10 see me after class

stirner is theoretically shit and his followers need to read lacan. i mean for christ sakes how is the stirnerian ego in any way different from Cartesian duality?

for a group of people that pride themselves so much on not believing in 'spooks,' it's pretty hilarious that they're entirely grounded on one of the most well-known bourgeois spooks of all time, that being this disgusting 'rationalist' individualism.

pretty much any anticapitalist is fundamentally a friend to me, but stirnerians are lowkey reactionary as fuck

i'm retarded

Did you not read Stirner at all?
On Descarte:

Stirner makes pain to retain a very materialist conception of the unique one throughout the book:

On your very bourgeoisie rationalism:

More quotes from the milkman, unique one edition:

"Only for the sake of a higher essence has any one been honored from of old, only as a ghost has he been regarded in the light of a hallowed, i.e., protected and recognized person. If I cherish you because I hold you dear, because in you my heart finds nourishment, my need satisfaction, then it is not done for the sake of a higher essence, whose hallowed body you are, not on account of my beholding in you a ghost, i.e. an appearing spirit, but from egoistic pleasure; you yourself with your essence are valuable to me, for your essence is not a higher one, is not higher and more general than you, is unique like you yourself, because it is you."

" But you will reply that you reveal quite another man, a worthier, higher, greater, a man that is more man than that other. I will assume that you accomplish all that is possible to man, that you bring to pass what no other succeeds in. Wherein, then, does your greatness consist? Precisely in this, that you are more than other men (the “masses”), more than men ordinarily are, more than “ordinary men”; precisely in your elevation above men. You are distinguished beyond other men not by being man, but because you are a “unique” [“einziger”] man. Doubtless you show what a man can do; but because you, a man, do it, this by no means shows that others, also men, are able to do as much; you have executed it only as a unique man, and are unique therein.

It is not man that makes up your greatness, but you create it, because you are more than man, and mightier than other — men.

It is believed that one cannot be more than man. Rather, one cannot be less! "

"To cause other men no detriment is the point of the demand to possess no prerogative; to renounce all “being ahead,” the strictest theory of renunciation. One is not to count himself as “anything especial,” e.g. a Jew or a Christian. Well, I do not count myself as anything especial, but as unique.[“einzig”] Doubtless I have similarity with others; yet that holds good only for comparison or reflection; in fact I am incomparable, unique. My flesh is not their flesh, my mind is not their mind. If you bring them under the generalities “flesh, mind,” those are your thoughts, which have nothing to do with my flesh, my mind, and can least of all issue a “call” to mine. "

"But what if the unhuman, turning its back on itself with resolute heart, should at the same time turn away from the disturbing critic and leave him standing, untouched and unstung by his remonstrance? “You call me the unhuman,” it might say to him, “and so I really am — for you; but I am so only because you bring me into opposition to the human, and I could despise myself only so long as I let myself be hypnotized into this opposition. I was contemptible because I sought my ‘better self’ outside me; I was the unhuman because I dreamed of the ‘human’; I resembled the pious who hunger for their ‘true self’ and always remain ‘poor sinners’; I thought of myself only in comparison to another; enough, I was not all in all, was not — unique.[“einzig”] But now I cease to appear to myself as the unhuman, cease to measure myself and let myself be measured by man, cease to recognize anything above me: consequently — adieu, humane critic! I only have been the unhuman, am it now no longer, but am the unique, yes, to your loathing, the egoistic; yet not the egoistic as it lets itself be measured by the human, humane, and unselfish, but the egoistic as the — unique.” "

/thread

what do you think the reason for collectivism is?

Ancaps aren't egoists because they believe property is magic

Aww, commies find out their ideology is a spook.

t. stirner

...

You must tie the noose around your neck then kick the chair.

Those are two different definitions

>>>/gulag/

But couldn't it be argued that it's not necessarily capitalism itself that is keeping labor from being free, but things such as cronyism and the power that labor guilds held at the time of Marx and Stirner?

Property is a spook, my spook.

let me guess, real capitalism has never been tried

holy shit back to reddit

I'm not saying it hasn't been tried, but you can't deny the effects money in politics has had on both the political and economic landscape of almost any nation.