Why is stirner associated with anarchism?

Everyone associates max stirner with anarchism but I dont really get the point. Anarchism it's just another spook like communism and fasicm. Every man should form his own ideology and his own set of rules in order to live freely.

Attached: stirner.jpg (383x500, 34.92K)

He seems to be like a philospher for criminals more than anything.
Morality is a spook and hed be pro egoist so someone would just steal from someone else if they could.

I think that stirner thought that morality was a spook because it's just another social costruct that could stop you from doing what you actually want to do. Not in a way that stealing, murdering and raping are justified because "morality doesn't mean shit so I do what I want", but in a way that the judgement of others won't have any effect on your actions.

I don't think Stirner intended Ego and its Own to be any kind of theory for organization of society, more like a self-help book.

Can somebody pull up the Stirner quote that amounts to

There are probably other interpretations…
also original quote… clearly other interpretations


The Ego and Its Own (1844) Cambridge 1995, p. 219

I don't think that's true.

Attached: the-freedom-of-man-is-in-political-liberalism-freedom-from-persons-from-personal-dominion-from-the-master-the-securing-of-each-individual-person-against-other-persons-personal-freedom-373847.jpg (1024x576 317.34 KB, 92.34K)

...

...

Forgot pic fuck

Attached: 4c3.jpg (476x536, 53.99K)

Stirner's egoism and idea of spooks was hugely influential on both social anarchists like Emma Goldman, and individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker. He himself was critical of anarchism, or at least Proudhon's mutualist version of it, but his ideas helped shape the next generation of anarchists.

That said, his concept of spooks speaks to the anarchist demand to oppose illegitimate authority. It's about examining the concepts and assumptions that control us, and throwing them off. Stirner was also critical of the state and of capitalism, which anarchism of course opposes.

lol confirmed for being a butt hurt spooked faggot that hasn't read Stirner. Morality is largely responsible for so many people being stolen from, not the other way around. It just triggers fuck up like you because it forces you to virtue insider others as individuals.

...

Why do you guys need someone like Stirner to tell you that obvious truths arent real? I havent read him, so perhaps this is just retarded anons tricking me, but morality OBVIOUSLY exists. Seriously, I mean cmon guys. Like, have you ever ever ever ever felt that something was wrong? Ever thought there was a right or wrong way to do things? An amoral philosophy is still a morality. Saying otherwise is like saying atheism isnt a belief because it isnt a religion.
Not to say he isnt right about god or the nation or even morality being spooks in so that they are ideas and should not guide your decisions. Maybe there is some special insight Im not aware of, but it seems like most of his thoughts are just natural DiaMat thoughts, at least as his thoughts are represented by the anons who shill him.
To respond to OPs post, there is no "communist" belief. There are plenty of "Communists" who arent Marxists. You can still believe what you want, even if the more intelligent anons will make fun of you.

Stirner had good philosophy but zero practicality.

This.


Are you joking?
Are you one of those Christfags who think atheism is just another religion?


The shit you say. Collectivism needs the balance of the individualists. They cannot bring the revolution on their own.

Attached: Qu-Max Stirner 03.png (1017x709, 75.92K)

Diagnosis: Stirnerite Retardation.

Balancing it is not "falling for it"

Its in my egoist interest, to give you as many headpats as i can.

Attached: 1524380401074.jpg (395x513, 129.28K)

Stirner is against all political ideologies, especially class/identity politics which subvert the creative destruction of the individual mind for the sake of pushing some abstract political 'cause'.

"Revolution and insurrection must not be looked upon as synonymous. The former consists in an overturning of conditions, of the established condition or status, the State or society, and is accordingly a political or social act; the latter has indeed for its unavoidable consequence a transformation of circumstances, yet does not start from it but from men's discontent with themselves, is not an armed rising, but a rising of individuals, a getting up, without regard to the arrangements that spring from it. The Revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on "institutions." It is not a fight against the established, since, if it prospers, the established collapses of itself; it is only a working forth of me out of the established. If I leave the established, it is dead and passes into decay. 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 purpose and deed."

READ.

Correct.


Muh social revolution.


Again, I seek balance . Too many people think they should be in one camp or the others.
Every anonymous is a collectivist

Attached: Friedrich Close.jpg (1200x503, 193.39K)

Why does Stirner have a black man's skull?

Attached: starwars where da white women at‽.jpg (786x393, 42.69K)

Stirner, as far as I can tell, is more proto-existentialist. And naw, the idea behind morality being a spook, as I understand it, would be that ideas commonly accepted as guiding principles should be subject to scrutiny and can hold you back if they aren't.

I could be totally wrong here - but I think that while Nietzsche later totally fucked this one up and replaced morality with a kind of "negative morality" (THE WEAK SHOULD FEAR THE STRONG RA RA RA GO OUT AND DO VIOLENCE), Stirner accepted the rejection of morality as a liberation from dogma which would allow one to fully serve one's self without falling into total contempt for everyone else.