Define The Stirnerist "Spook" And Explain How Egoism Coincides With Leftist Thought

Spoon feed me, comrades! I'm an entry-level Marxist brainlet who's too lazy and lacks the reading comprehension to read The Ego And His Own for himself.

Stirner has no respect for private property rights and while he also does not believe in sacred socialism, as it's a "spook" or in plain English an ideal you hold sacred and untouchable to the point that it inhibits you realizing your full potential as a human being, he does believe in voluntary unions of egoists which exist to serve the interests of all participants rather than some "higher" cause

let me break it down for brainlets

right and wrong are spooks
good and evil are spooks
true and false are spooks
its wrong to be spooked.
its incorrect to be spooked
its unwise to be spooked.
humans should unspook themselves, because …

As much as I love the idea of taking somebody's "muh private property" I think there's shit that's objectively wrong. What would Stirner say if he saw an ancap """voluntarily""" abduct a kid from the street in the absence of law and order which he himself calls a spook?

Let me correct.
It's wrong to be unaware of your spooks.
Stirner would object to that ancap doing that. Not because abducting a child is objectively wrong but because it acts against his own subjective morals or because he would receive award and praise for saving the child.

As spooky as it may be what if it's a lot better than anything we've got now? Say we achieve full communism and live in a post-scarcity world where we've all got the free time and freedom to dedicate our lives solely to ourselves which sounds like something an egoist would like so what if it takes calling on people's altruism and abstract ideas to achieve?

It acts in one's self interest no?


If it helps him feel good, I see no reason why it acts against his own interest.

don't know what stirner would say, since he never commented on child abduction as far as i know. but hypothetically, stirner might decide to stop the abduction. someone else might decide the same, or differently

I guess. I'm just asking what a socialist says when an egoist laughs at the idea of doing fuck all to create a better world if it requires helping others.

Just seems like he'd be basing his self worth on society's approval is all.

The point is that being aware of spooks is the only thing that matters.
Spooks only become a problem if they get in your way.

What are some ways spooks can get in your way?


don't know Stirner but this one is pretty easy

Was Stirner an atheist or was all his talk of God and Christianity in The Ego And His Own just metaphors?

Sacred socialism would be irrespective of self interest or benefit, socialism for the sake of socilaism or because it's the "right thing to do" rather than for self interest (even though such a system would be for the self interest of at least all workers but imo for the capitalists as well as they're currently slaves to capital itself)
Those who endorse socialism are what max calls "involuntary egoists" those who act as egoists without realizing it

Can't egoism be used by a guy like George Soros to justify being a cut throat capitalist though?

Nice. Very nice.

Hrm. I hope he was

yes, but our opposition to him can be justified by the same

Absolutely, it's in his perceived self interest to belong to the capitalist class within the framework of capitalism, and that's objectively true to certain extent (eg. Capitalists have better living conditions than theworker and etc. But again I'd argue that just as the workers are slaves to basic needs under capitalism, the capitalists are slave to capital itself- they're never content with what they have and the bottom line is they're always seeking more, their avariciousness is the cause of their own slavery although it's a different form of slavery entirely)

My problem with Stirner is that Stirner and the people who read his book thinks that there has ever been a situation where a person has had enough information to know which decisions are best for himself or others.