Stirner is a capitalist apologist

This. I mean even just read Plato ffs. Complete injustice is detrimental even to the unjust, since some level of trust and co-operation is necessary even among unscrupulous individuals.

No? The fact that Striner wrote the book in of itself is proof enough

I keep seeing leftists repeat this idea that the person who assembles some of the pieces of a product is the rightful owner of that product, calling it an outrage that they're paid a dollar to assemble it when it's sold for two dollars, totally ignoring everything else involved in producing the product.

The worker is already paid the value of their labor. They aren't entitled to the full profits of something they had only built in part. The guy who makes a burger working as a cook doesn't own the burger, nor should he. It doesn't belong to him.

How can you have any kind of individuality if you can't own stuff?

...

Just because you have no personality outside of being a capitalist whore doesn't make that true for the rest of us.

...

Let's take away your food, water, your car, and your phone and see how much individuality you have left. I'm taking it. It belongs to the community now.

You don't own food, you eat it, dummy.

If you'd ever meet a group of bushmen, who have no conception of private property, would you take their food and water to make your point to them?

If you do, my reaction would be the same as theirs.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with realizing that capitalists are simply acting in their own self-interest.
The solution is not to blame them for that using some silly, unfounded, easily dismissed morality. The solution is for workers to start acting in their own self-interest too.

We're coming for that toothbrush, whitey.

Pure ideology.
Fuck, you don't even need to read Stirner.
Kropotkin said the same thing about individuality as it related to Communism.

theconjurehouse.com/2016/11/18/the-stirner-wasnt-a-capitalist-you-fucking-idiot-cheat-sheet/

You realize he’s being ironic and pantomiming Hegel when he does that, right?

Reread his critique of "Political Liberalsm". He absolutety murders it.

...

...

/thread.

Can you fags stop taking bait for just once.

Bravo. Bravissimo.

stirner is shit both politically and philosophically.

lacan BTFO'd him without even mentioning stirner

hegel was a racist?
too bad, all I know of him is pic related

I still dunno why Max Stirner memes are so relevant to Holla Forums. I listened to act 1 or whatever of one of his books and I couldn't for the life of me figure out what exactly his work's got to do with socialism.

Hegel is so confusing I barely got the point I don't know if I'm too fucking retarded or this man needed an interpreter for communicating with the normal world.

Hes saying that phrenology is fucking retard basically

His philosophy is largely inconsistent with racism but he was personally racist and groundlessly claimed that Africa and the rest of the "savage world" had no history. Marx was also racist tho, these were people in the 19th century obviously theyre going to have some glaring holes by todays standards, but the application of Marxism and therefore of Hegelianism has done far more for antiracism than Marx ever did harm by calling LaSalle a jew nigger or whatever

Nowhere does Stirner say we should act in our own self-interest. Should is a spook.

Holy fuck you're spooked

explain

Meanwhile, in reality: '''self-interest can take up many forms, all of which are socially mediated. Following Stirner's Milkyway (non-)ethics, you are supposed to push out the surplus value from the workers if it's in your self-interest currently (e.g. in capitalism).

It's almost like stirner was satire.

Yet they are comfy as fuck, so? Will you, Stirturds tell Bill Gates to stop his OS rent when it clearly benefits him immensely? Nope!

Fucking yachts, champagne with gold flakes, and the knowledge of "helping" lesser beings thru your charities. As far as I can tell, this is egoist heaven!

Exactly. Stirnerites are capitalist shills.

as much as i despise that faggot as an idealistic bafoon, and even more so anyone following and shilling his works, your understanding is even worse than what he actually said.
not gonna argue in favor of him beyond that but dude, you suck, lol.

I'd rader those tits murder my dick tbfqh famalam.

Oh, wow, how we, Marxists, will ever recover?!

...

Not him, but

...

Oh, yeah. You should read his writings on Chinese history. He thought their orthography was incompatible with modern thought.

That's rather modern, tbh.

t. has not read stirner's critics.
Exploiting others is the decidedly non-egoist thing to do.

How the fuck do you read Ego and come away in favor of capitalism?

I can’t tell if you’re being ironic. Regardless, point is, Stirner *was* being ironic when he was writing that stuff.

I'm not being ironic. I'm being a 21st century critic of Milkman (aka. Stirner). The "irony" here is nothing more than Stirnfags not having read Marx's German Ideology, or worse: attempting to play it down…
TBH, I have absolutely no idea how Idealists Individualists could – today – retain a sense of coherence.

Stirner's individualism is (objectively – fuck me for using this word) regresive and anti-dialectic.

individualism is best for smart sociopaths and capitalists

anyone else are just lying to them selves and dont know what they are getting into

At best this means Stirnerfags are incapable of drawing something from Stirner that isn't just Stirner himself and his fancies as a reference point for their own egoism (essentially hero worship), or it means that Stirnerfags reject universalism (or at least universalist premises taken from Stirner) outright while at the same time claiming there's a universal interest in everybody at once to support [insert your (really everyone's) desires].

To which I should add the reminder that Stirner died a literal cuckold to the sting of a bee.

And that I forgot my shitposting flag.

This, actually. Egoism is absolutely useless.

same

TL;DR: everyone who rejects universalism is a right-winger.

That's absolutely true though.

I meant the comment toward Chinese orthography being incompatible with modern thinking. I think his conception of phantasms (AKA spooks in the old translation) is worthwhile but to be an egoist is sort of… I don’t know, reactionary?

I agree.

This. And everytime they defend stirner it's this shabby defence. What does an egoist care about what Stirner's ego likes?

but that's not even the worst part of stirner. this is literally the "fuck you dad" philosophy, and i'm not even being cute here: everyone who went through adolescence has been a stirnerist.

It's perfectly possible to be a left winger and reject universalism. It will make you a worthless leftist and one that can but only await failure in the face of a manifestly universalistic world filled with prevailing univeral truths, but it's possible.

or maybe most of the people itt criticizing Stirner are badly misinterpreting what egoism is and are too stubborn to admit it.

It's not that the bourgies are "EVIL".
It's that my self interest is NOT to be exploited.

Kropotkin argued for communism based on individualism as well.
Capitalism doesn't own individualism.

The point of Stirner is there is no way of getting away from the self.
Somehow people still miss this.

wew

Also, anyone who thinks the crux of Stirner was self-interest as normally understood, is an idiot.
Stirnerian self-interest is about autonomy.

Only as the property of me do the spirits, the truths, get to rest; and they then for the first time really are, when they have been deprived of their sorry existence and made a property of mine, when it is no longer said “the truth develops itself, rules, asserts itself; history (also a concept) wins the victory,” etc. The truth never has won a victory, but was always my means to the victory, like the sword (“the sword of truth”). The truth is dead, a letter, a word, a material that I can use up. All truth by itself is dead, a corpse; it is alive only in the same way as my lungs are alive — to wit, in the measure of my own vitality. Truths are material, like vegetables and weeds; as to whether vegetable or weed, the decision lies in me.

>Egoism, as Stirner uses it, is not opposed to love nor to thought; it is no enemy of the sweet life of love, nor of devotion and sacrifice; it is no enemy of intimate warmth, but it is also no enemy of critique, nor of socialism, nor, in short, of any actual interest. It doesn’t exclude any interest. It is directed against only disinterestedness and the uninteresting; not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc.

Stirner's egoism is pragmatic with the only axiom being the unique self. This is an attack on ultimately-liberal ideology posing as the basis of useful inquiry. Many Marxians tend to smite the 'individualist' liberals such as the Spencerists but they are still playing around with Marx's humanism. The goal here is to test this humanism and the theories which are independent of it but developed from it to see if they are useful in analysing the world around us to suit our needs as individuals.

Objects are not a part of individual

...

last poster is full of shit or just stupid

Stirner doesn't says the exploration of the owner is whats wrong, its valid af.

He says that the underling letting him/herself be exploited is wrong and stupid.

Stirner is not pro-capitalist nor communist. He criticizes both and hard for being spooks. Read the book.

yeah simple as that really.

I came here to laugh at you.

Do you feel any shame at all for being such a silly faggot? You come on to a board, not knowing shit, and think you have some kind of huge refutation? Your life must be an unending, bumbling hell straight out of a cartoon.

Litteraly this.

wow, that really made me think. now go actually read the book you're criticizing.

I honestly can't believe I just noticed this; I think that some people are beginning to understand Stirner.

bitcoin refutes all

I read Stirner before you were even a sperm in your dad's balls
Race isn't a spook because it's genetic reality.

What's with all these people citing capitalist exploitation as somehow in the self-interest of the capitalist? I'm pretty sure Marx had a line about how the best kind of capitalist is exactly the one who practices extreme self-denial in the service of growing capital, so not very egoist at all.

Lets get one thing straight. The two philosophers that have most heavily influenced human thought in the 20th century were Marx and Nietzsche, and Stirner influenced them both.
Marx has literally shaped the political future of almost any country in the world (either by the people taking on his ideas or violently rejecting them) and had maximum influence on pleb thought.
Nietzsche has influenced every intellectual worth his salt after him (either for or against, again, this is not about the validity of their ideas), and Nazism flows most definitely from his ideas (whether lefties like it or not). He also pinpointed the idea of nihilism which is also one of the major shapers (even if it is subconsciously) of modern Western thought and action (and as such influences the whole world).
Stirner represents the first philosopher openly embracing (the conclusions of) nihilism, and every philosopher willing to convince people to adopt a certain model (as all philosophy in the end is forcing a model of reality on other people) after him had to tackle him first, either towards the readers or inwards to convince themselves.
See for example Marx, who wants to posit a mode of thought where people equally share resources and work for "the greater good" (aka force people to adapt spooks). Well then, in a world where the old religions have become untenable, you better disprove and dismantle nihilism first. So he spent HUNDREDS of pages to disprove (ALSO TO HIMSELF) Stirner, which in the end amounted to using emotion as communism is rife with illogicalities, and Stirner's idea can be posited in a few sentences and represents a hard problem (to anyone with half a brain and willing to lay emotions to the side for a bit).
To see the influence of Stirner on Nietzsche one just has to read his works. If you don't see it, I am sorry to say, you are blind.
So, disregarding the memes, Stirner has been largely influential.
I will now shortly expand on why he is also largely "ignored". The funny thing is, we can use Nietzsches idea of power perspectives to explain part of it. Every philosopher in the end wants to force his model of reality on others. So keeping this in mind, Stirners ideas are largely detrimental to this undertaking, as he spurs people to reject any model that others foist upon them. What is the best way then to deal with this? Don't talk about the guy at all and pretend he doesn't exist, of course. Nietzsche posits similar ideas to Stirner but they are part of such an extensive body of work full of distractions that people can ignore the excellent bits and incorporate things they like into their models.
Stirner can be called an anti-philosopher as he lays bare the inherent irrationality of philosophic models and this causes philosophers to approach him aggressively, let alone those with stakes in religious thought (which you could file democracy, humanism and communism under if you wanted to).

You can stop using that flag now.

Mad that I appropriated your god?

It's just a little dishonest for someone who is very clearly not a marxist to be using that flag. Also there's a regular here who tends to use that flag and has post quality vastly higher than yours. My first thought upon seeing your post was that he must have had a brain aneurysm.

I have never witnessed someone more autistic than you in all my years on 4chan.

Not really.
Even people who study the matter say that clinal variation already accounts for what people call "race".

Although, even if it were "real", it could still become a spook because people have fixed ideas about it.

No, stop this dogshit. Races are real, just because the edges are blurry doesn't make it not real.

How do you tell who's who, then? What's a viable and useful definition of race? If a definition isn't useful in any way for a given aim then why base your analysis on it?

>>>/marx/6300

Stirner was just an ignorant communist.

Not really.

He wasn't, he BTFO karl marx and marx hated him. Commies and lefties nowadays appropriate stirner to somehow be agreeable to them (calling race a spook for example). It's actually pathetic.

Don't make me dig out the laborers jpg.

Communists were the capitalism's secret force all along.