/lit/ - Literature★

>>12837 (OP)

Max Stirner was neither a capitalist nor a socialist. A true Stirnerite couldn't care less whether you're rich or poor, free or enslaved, alive or dead, except on aesthetic grounds. He would be incapable of morally condemning your predicament and still stay consistent, however. It may be true that Stirner had some sympathies for socialism, and he certainly spoke ill of many features of capitalism, but he denied the validity of ethical judgements and so he couldn't possibly adhere to any ideology that was based on them (i.e. most ideologies).

I'll share some quotes I wrote down from when I read it that might help you. I'd argue that he belongs to neither, though he criticized socialism much more because he had known the other Young Hegelians.

"always there is only a new master set in the old one's place, and the overturning is a building up" pg. 110

"Some have wanted to transfigure peoples and States by broadening them out to 'mankind' and 'general reason'; but servitude would only become still more intense with this widening, and philanthropists and humanitarians are as absolute masters as politicians and diplomats." pg. 242

"If it is said that competition throws every thing open to all, the expression is not accurate, and it is better put thus: competition makes everything purchasable" pg.266

"One is not worthy to have what one, through weakness, lets be taken from him; one is not worthy of it because one is not capable of it." pg. 267

"It is not the money that does you damage, but your incompetence to take it." pg. 274

"Communism, in proclaiming the welfare of all, annuls outright the well-being of those who hitherto lived on their income from investments and apparently felt better in that than in the prospects of Weitling's strict hours of labor." pg. 309

"We are equal only in thoughts, only when 'we' are thought, not as we really and bodily are." pg. 311

"The poor are to blame for there being rich men." pg. 315

"Now, as my object is not the overthrow of an established order but my elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not a political or social but (as directed toward myself and my ownness alone) an egoistic principle and deed.

The revolution commands one to make arrangements, the insurrection demands that he rise or exalt himself. What constitution was to be chosen, this question busied the revolutionary heads, and the whole political period foams with constitutional fights and constitutional questions, as the social talents too were uncommonly inventive in societary arrangements (phalansteries and the like). The insurgent strives to become constitutionless. " pg. 316

I've got one of these too

The right of all (e. g. to eat) is a right of every individual. Let each keep this right unabridged for himself, then all exercise it spontaneously; let him not take care for all though,---let him not grow zealous for it as for a right of all.

In considerations of right the question is always asked, "What or who gives me the right to it?" Answer: God, love, reason, nature, humanity, etc. No, only your might, your power gives you the right (your reason, e. g., may give it to you). [p. 245]

>>12852

That could just as well come from Ragnar Redbeard, if you ask me.

He is just an edgy anarchist

>>12857

Except you don't necessarily need anarchy. As long as there is a system in place that you can exploit for yourself, everything is right in the world.

"Of science but not sacred science."

How can this be interpereted without interpreting it as malisious intent.

We all know politics and alterior motives should be left out of science.

>>12934

>We all know politics and alterior motives should be left out of science.

Who we and why?

https://archive.org/details/MaxStirnerTheUniqueAndItsProperty

>>12872

>As long as there is a system in place that you can exploit for yourself, everything is right in the world

This must be why leftists love him.