Why didn't Stirner support communism?

Why didn't Stirner support communism?

Reading Ego and Its Own it might seem that Stirner rejects communism. But what's weird is that if you read both his critics and his followers they cite that he thought of himself as a communist.

Don't really get it, but he was a communist, even if he didn't think of himself one, his ideas are eerily close to anarcho-syndicalism.

By the way though, he does share a lot of ideas with the anarcho-nihilists E.G., rejecting the whole activism thing. He seems to think lifestylism is ok, like a lot of annils have advocated.

...

There was no proper "communism" in his time. The "communism" he criticises is the utopian socialism of Wilhelm Weitling.

Because it was a spook faggot

Because individualists rather remain within the status quo than see the only way out (collectivism) materialize.

Because individualism and egoism are innately not just anti-political, but also anti-communist.

Too much moralfaggotry

He died in 1856, though. Did he have any later works?

after the ego and its own he only wrote Stirner's Critics and spent the rest of his life translating other works into German to make money.

which one of you did this

Because individualism is ultimately bourgeois and Stirner was a classcuck despite romanticizing endlessly about the working class in the few shitposts he wrote.

So why is Stirner-posting tolerated, again?

This: is the only actually relevant post here but you conveniently skipped it because it does not fit your agenda.

Because we have a rather important amount of completely uneducated post-leftists here who parrot every Holla Forums meme unironically without knowing exactly what they're even saying.

People here shittalk Xerox for making us look like shit, but he's the same as over half of the posters here (uneducated, unread, repeats meta/leftypol/ meme arguments, etc.).

This is the best ironic post ive seen this month, you fit right in with the memers! =3

...

My only 'agenda' is communism. Regardless of Stirner's contemporaries, his followers are clearly anti-communist retards, the Randian equivalents of the left.


This makes sense.

It's not ironic and you're probably the biggest offender tbh. I've seen instances of you recommending material from your post-leftist 'theory' collcetion and then literally failing to properly explain something in it, indicating you've probably not read it or even read next to none of the things you claim to read.

my sides

people being buttmad because they can't understand stirner will forever be the best thing to come from this board

Or it wont even bother with most people here cause they flat out ignore or refuse to even look at it cause its bourgeoisie or lifestylist or whatever buzzword leftists use nowaday. I have along stop bothering spreading the post left cancer knowing that people wont like it and whenever i was seriouse and explained it i got flat out ignored.

And that post is ironic cause there are not any post-leftists around this board except me and n1x. (Rebel is meming if he claims to be) And we both mock the living shit out of Holla Forums having all its theory based on memes. (Muke being Golden Example) This board is a joke and anyone who takes that post seriouse proof's again the incompetence of this shit stain of a board. A rather important amount of post-leftists… god please i wish this was the cause but we have old left ignored faggots here who denounce everything they dislike as IDPOL.

Stirner is a /lit/ meme and nobody here will ever grasp Stirner in his fullest sense. The pure neglect of everybody here to actually look into stirner and ALL the fucking anarchist brances based off his idea's and critiques that he will always remain a meme here to dismis anything you guys dont like.

/lit/erally reading Ego right now to get behind the meme. His views on "spirit" are kind of tautological, but I think the book is really, really funny.

The whole first half is a satire on the young hegelians, especially Feuerbach and Bruno Bauer. Its pretty cheeky.

...

He didn't understand materialism

why is a spook
didn't is a spook
Stirner is a spook
Support is a spook
Communism is a spook

...

...

not an argument

Forget the rest of these faggots user, as someone who isn't memeing and actually read the book, I'll give it to you straight:

Any system that has organized law creates a restriction on freedom. Even anarcho-communism, though noble in its deeds of preventing killing and raping by punishing transgressors, is still something that restricts the freedom of individuals to rape and kill. You can try to justify it as much as you'd like by saying it would be necessary for a society to function etc. etc. but in the end, you are restricting a person's freedom, even if that freedom can be used to infringe upon someone else's freedom. Make no mistake, remember who you're dealing with; Stirner thought all the world, including people, his property, so long as he could take it by force, rights don't exist, and using reasoning and logic to justify things isn't needed because it requires sibserviance to the spook of a higher power of the idea of justification itself: if you really want someone you don't need to justify why or how you want it, just go out and take it. He saw morality as another constraint on human freedom.

Next reason is that communism requires the subservience of the will, to sacrifice oneself for the cause of communism itself, and thus reduce a human to being a toll to produce an outcome, not unlike the basis of capitalism. "I have set my cause on nothing." remarked Striner, he believed in living out one's life without regard to a higher cause, purpose, meaning, system, or idea, anything that makes him a tool for another. He, The Creative Nothingness, is the be-all end-all of existence, no cause is greater to him than himself, because he is above it; people must have power over ideas, ideas should not have power over people.

But, don't get the wrong idea. Stirner was no rapist, not a killer. He didn't want to kill or rape anybody, he just wanted the freedom to know he could, but he didn't actually want to do it. An interesting take, I admire him, though not idolize.

Aside from laws restricting freedoms, he was against communism because it separates him from his property, sure capitalism does the same, but that doesn't make communism any better since it does the same thing. And don't say something like "But in a communist system you will get your share of goods to enjoy, moreso than capitalism!" Again, EVERYTHING in the world already belonged to him, he wasn't about to sacrifice his will to a compromise, a system, or a collective. He was the unique one, and his will is the law he exerts on the world to do as he pleases.

But much like the example I gave earlier, "wanting freedoms to oppress others but not actually doing it", he appears to take the same stance on property, "Everything in the world belongs to me, but I will let you have it, including the end result of *your* labor." There's nothing to say that egoism and altruism are antithetical. Indeed, Stirner said he loved all of humanity with his ego, love was natural to him. And Perhaps this argument is derided, but feelings are a justification, at least to an egoist anarchist. If the ego wishes to see others happy, to do away with suffering, then the fulfillment of their desire to ease the suffering of their fellow man is not only their justification in itself, it is their motivation, it is their ownness, the very essence of their unique being.

I can't tell if Stirnerposting is satire or genuine autism anymore. For anyone else, including other anarchists on this board, if there ever was a doubt that Stirner's philosophy is anything more than neo-Hegelian idealism wrapped in a romanticization of the individual as the supreme subject, here it is.

If you're vocally anti-communist, or even anti-organization, you're not worth having around at all. Enter the dustbin of history and go masturbate and posture over yourself while others try to actually do something for the good of an honest cause.