Am I still a type of Stirnerite if I don't believe Anarchism to be a viable idea?

Am I still a type of Stirnerite if I don't believe Anarchism to be a viable idea?

If you can reconsile egoist anarchism with not anarchism, sure.

Young Hegelian autism isn't really compatible with any emancipatory movement at all, so I'd say you're fine.

Look into Post-Anarchism.

Does this have anything to do with post-leftism?

a completely useless movement that criticizes basic flaws with anarchism without actually offering a solution? Sign me up!

Well, I can't honestly see any large mass of people sustaining a stateless civilization as described by Anarchism, despite some number among them having it in them to become and stay fully realized egoists.

Uhm… verrryy loosly. Not really that mutch relation besides that both are contemporary and both use the philosophy of Stirner. But Post-left use nietzsche, Frankfurt school and the SI while Post Anarchism is Lacan and Foucalt.


Your complete ignorance is showing user, go in the streets and do something you activist you! =3

I guess you can be an Egoist and thinking Egoists will ever be enough to outpower the non Egoists.

Why don't you believe any large mass of people cannot run a stateless civilization

Anarcho-Stalinism when?

No one knows you're Julius Evola on the internet.

...

Marx didnt understand Hegel

Common weaknesses where people will clump into cliques, idolize popular persons to escape responsibility, and begin drama with each other which itself creates a nice ground for spooking and attempts at 'winning' against real and imagined enemies as time goes on.

This childish behavior is much easier to get going than to grow up and above these notions, and although we may have some among ourselves as success stories, it would be a miracle to get a majority of people to be this way.

KYS fam.

END THIS MEME
He was more Hegelian than Hegel himself see his writing in commodity and social classes

Marx formed his own philosophical discipline, which is what made him break from the rest of the young Hegelians whom still firmly believed in idealist neologisms. This is obvious if you look at how radically different for example Feuerbachian philosophy is compared to Marxian.

What are these? Why are they inherant to all humans?

smfh Evola was a racialist idiot who deferred all individual responsibility for greatness onto an abstract category of identity, and who reproduced the values of the ruling class by being a traditionalist. He was a weakling.


>not being able to recognize when someone is joking
Autism.

Yeah, but to say the young Hegelians aren't associated with any emancipatory movement.


Griffith a cute.


um…I'm not so sure, but yes Marx is plenty different from the rest. He was one of the youngest of the young Hegelians.

The only behavior I will say is universal is the seeking of pleasure in one form or another, and that the avoidance of being fully responsible for yourself and your thought is a common weakness ultimately derived from this.

I don't feel that it is anything special or immutable, but just a psychological trap that gets too many people.

Considering Stirner wasn't even an anarchist, I'm sure you're fine

Maybe not in the Anarchist Theory sense we have today, but undoubtedly Stirner didn't believe any higher authority (god, state, etc.) and proposed a stateless "society" (read: union of egoists) so he was anarchist. Just not communist.

Neither was he an anarchist in the sense of that time either, after all he was a contemporary of Proudhon, critiqued him, and never took that label for himself.

But I don't mind calling him a proto-anarchist since his ideas have been influential on anarchism from the late 19th century onward, and the themes of work have an anarchistic bent.

He was a "no rulers, but no rules either" type of person.
Stirnerism to me is more a way of operating within a political system rather than a political system in and of itself.

"Anarchist without adjectives" is a thing you know.
So you have to label yourself for that label to apply? So by that logic, someone who only ever eats vegetables and yet doesn't call themselves a vegetarian, means they're not a vegetarian?

To be fair, that word has too much baggage these days.

Pescatarians are not real vegetarians.