>made Marx seeth

[Anonymous No.17958735]

based

[Anonymous No.17958814]

>>17958735
Summarise what he said again.

[Anonymous No.17958825]

>>17958814
Lol

[Anonymous No.17958831]

>>17958814
what he said depends on who he was trolling

[Anonymous No.17958833]

>>17958814
Max or Marx?
For Max, it is simple. I am all in all, not accountable or obligated to anyone or anything, not even the idea of myself. The death of The People and the State will lead to my rise, as those concepts merely seek my subservience. Freedom is taken, not given.
For Marx, he wants everything given to him without any might. An incomplete freedom is free (you're still a slave to the commune).

[Anonymous No.17958845]

>>17958735

[Anonymous No.17958865]

>>17958833
More on Stirner.

[Anonymous No.17958870]

>>17958845
nyao

[Anonymous No.17958877]

>>17958814
>[free competition] "is not 'free,' because I lack the things for competition.
attacks "the division of labour resulting from private property for its deadening effects on the ego and individuality of the worker"
>"I am not at all against socialism, but against consecrated socialism; my selfishness is not opposed to love [...] nor is it an enemy of sacrifice, nor of self-denial [...] and least of all of socialism"

[Anonymous No.17958939]

>>17958865
In The Ego and It's Own, Stirner lays out that he is able to describe himself (name, attitude, masculinity, etc) and describe definitions, but not *define* himself. I am the Creative Nothing, for no labels stick to I yet I label all else.
There's only two main takeaways: I am perfect (the Unique) and there are no sinners (being possessed by an idea isn't being a lesser egoist). Under all systems I may lack my complete freedom, but I will never lose I and that is all I need. Even in slavery, I own my might and I thus own I.

[Anonymous No.17958953]

>>17958939
Truly, his nothing noths.

[Anonymous No.17959036]

>>17958939
Holy shit this is so wrong. This is the kind of retardation you get when you read without context.
Everything Stirner said can be summarized in one sentence (ignoring his flaws and ramblings), your pseud post is useless. The sentence is:
The Ego is the Absolute Knowledge of Hegel. With the necessary context, this becomes clear; the first part of the book is basically a plagiarization of Hegel (as pointed out by Marx), it is the development of the Ego, unconscious. Second part of the book is what comes after last chapter of PoS, what AS does that is. Though that part is quite petty, as it writes what AS does in relation to what left-Hegelians judge as consequences of Hegel (expounded in "Liberalism" chapters).
Stirner is quite shit, he adds basically nothing novel, and is extremely derivative. Marx is shit but at least he did something.

[Anonymous No.17959094]

>>17959036
>Marx is shit but at least he did something.
leftypol is that way ---->
also fuck you.

[Anonymous No.17959128]

>>17959036
Marx is STILL seething, hm?

[Anonymous No.17959153]

>>17959094
>filtered by both Stirner and Marx

[Anonymous No.17960028]

lmao

[Anonymous No.17960037]

>>17959036
>The Ego is the Absolute Knowledge of Hegel. With the necessary context, this becomes clear; the first part of the book is basically a plagiarization of Hegel (as pointed out by Marx), it is the development of the Ego, unconscious. Second part of the book is what comes after last chapter of PoS, what AS does that is. Though that part is quite petty, as it writes what AS does in relation to what left-Hegelians judge as
All of this is just wrong. Stirner's book is the final development of Hegel - the Nietzschean last man - Der Einziger. The man Stirner leaves us with is not an "egoist" or a sacred individual. He's just an ordinary person who has the courage to face life. He doesn't waste his time on philosophical questions. He leaves philosophy behind. If anything, Marx was stupid because he didn't realize Stirner had discovered existentialism - which had completely eclipsed Marxism, and made Left-Hegelianism outdated the moment it was birthed.
>Marx did something
Like what? Cheat on his wife, and have his commit suicide due to his abuse? Leech off of Engels? Stirner was right about degenerates like Marx, and communists like him, they're biggest hypocritics ever. They want full employment, yet they don't want to work. They hate capitalism, but fucking rats like Marx used to brag about investing in the stock market. Stirner himself was a business man, and a school teacher, he earned his bread - he had no help. No father. Mother was mentally fucking ill, no siblings or family to look after him. Unlike Marx, who had everything, and still was a worthless SOB.

[Anonymous No.17960138]

>>17959036
>the first part of the book is basically a plagiarization of Hegel
You're a clown; Stirner makes it clear in the Philosophical Reactionaries he was using Hegel's dialetic to show just as easy enough to justify "egoism." with it. The point of that is to show Hegel's philosophy is worthless beacuse you can use it to justify pretty much any action or position. Nietzsche made the point that the only reason dialetics exist, and he was right on the money here, is to make it difficult for people to see that, and people like you, who fetishize it, are idiots. Your entire spiel is nothing but a fuckin joke worth nothing but mockery. You take yourself way too seriously like all wannabe philosophers.

[Anonymous No.17960205]

>>17958877
>I am not at all against socialism, but against consecrated socialism
If you read Stirner's critics carefully, he defines sacred socialism as socialism that would force men to work.
>. But the work that is considered as an “honor for the human being” and as his “calling” has become the creator of economics and remains the mistress of sacred socialism, where, in its quality as “human labor,” it is supposed to “develop human capacities,” and where this development is a human calling, an absolute interest.
There are no forms of socialism that don't force people to work.

[Anonymous No.17960237]

>>17958735
true, and if you don't belibe it that your are like this:

[Anonymous No.17960776]

>>17958735
implying he wasn't just an elaborate in-joke by Marx and Engels making fun of the other Young Hegelians