Convince me to finish reading Saint Max when Marx was high on his idea of base/superstructure and his reductionist materialism. His critique of Stirner relies on that Stirner comes off as believing only in an idealistic conception of physical events, in that we are ruled by thoughts and that reality is molded by thought. Where does Stirner actually concieve of this, except for satirizing this very idea with his development of The Unique, which is filled by the unique content (as the dialectical negation of thought development throughout the book). Marx concieves of the unique as petty bourgeois individualism, denying that there is a materialistic factor of ideas and ideals (Stirner's step towards psychoanalysis), and instead concieves a vulgar materialistic idea that consciousness is last in line as a reflection of material and social conditions. Whereas Stirner concieves of the individual as something not able to be completely defined in conceptual networks of intercourse a la base/superstructure, and the underlying physical network cannot be abstracted as simple as other young hegelians concieved (which Marx places him as the pinnacle of).
Not to say that Stirner's critique isn't dated, which Marx continously nitpicks. But Marx doesn't seem to accept that there are conscious changes that can be made on the individual level to affect larger scale thought, and just regards Stirner's efforts against morality as individualistic trash, as if the whole moralic structure is defined by communal/social factors, and not involving the material consciousness in the organic process.
So convince me Stirner is the idealist that he's made out to be, compared to Marx's profile of materialism.