Max Stirner

scrutable

scrutable

New member
I was surprised that a search came up with nothing when I typed in Stirner's name. Apart from the fact that he is a well known figure in Anarchism, he is, perhaps more importantly, the first (that I know of) to espouse views of Individualist Anarchism.
Individidualist Anarchism, that glorious ideal where there are no rules, no State and no property other than your own rules, property and State.
Anarchists, especially perhaps Anarcho Syndicalists, often deny that Anarchism has no rule of law ideal in-built. Here's some Stirner, free from Gutenberg, to refute that notion.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34580/34580-h/34580-h.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner
 
I don't know. I read his work too and got a definite icky feeling...I think he was espousing selfishness in an Ayn Rand sort of way.
 
voodoochile76, I think that to be something of a misreading of Stirner. He sees, of course, property rights as a 'spook' that is only useful inasmuch as it serves the ego. Rand seemed to believe in a more metaphysically baseless idea of property, as though it existed in and of itself as opposed to simply existing as a sort of ghost. Further, there is a section under "My Intercourse" where he offhandedly makes a remark about property and implies, parenthetically, that all property is state property. This because the state serves to protect private property.

To take Stirner's position here is to suppose a profound optimism about what the unfettered individual may do - that given absolute freedom, they're likely to choose a sort of life that is best not only for them, but for those with whom they interact, so far as they respect them. This or, at least, a nihilistic sort of chaos where the individual fights for their own ability to be free. Anything else is existential poverty.

We see it pretty well in traveler circles. We divorce ourselves from preconceived notions of how life is to be lived (the best of us, anyway) and choose instead a life of travel, on the fringes. It does just so happen that most of us are good people who do not steal, who are respectful (at least of each other, if not also of other non-travelers). At worst, the aforementioned 'nihilistic chaos' comes into full bloom, and each of us swims in it, using only whatever force we have to cope - and perhaps helping others along the way. It appears to be the default state of humanity.

A more communistic reading of Stiner can be found here https://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everything
 
Bhaha same here voodoo or selling it dirt cheap at a flea market. I get stuff I think I'd use for a time then depart with easily.
 
Buffalo said:
voodoochile76, I think that to be something of a misreading of Stirner. He sees, of course, property rights as a 'spook' that is only useful inasmuch as it serves the ego. Rand seemed to believe in a more metaphysically baseless idea of property, as though it existed in and of itself as opposed to simply existing as a sort of ghost. Further, there is a section under "My Intercourse" where he offhandedly makes a remark about property and implies, parenthetically, that all property is state property. This because the state serves to protect private property.

To take Stirner's position here is to suppose a profound optimism about what the unfettered individual may do - that given absolute freedom, they're likely to choose a sort of life that is best not only for them, but for those with whom they interact, so far as they respect them. This or, at least, a nihilistic sort of chaos where the individual fights for their own ability to be free. Anything else is existential poverty.

We see it pretty well in traveler circles. We divorce ourselves from preconceived notions of how life is to be lived (the best of us, anyway) and choose instead a life of travel, on the fringes. It does just so happen that most of us are good people who do not steal, who are respectful (at least of each other, if not also of other non-travelers). At worst, the aforementioned 'nihilistic chaos' comes into full bloom, and each of us swims in it, using only whatever force we have to cope - and perhaps helping others along the way. It appears to be the default state of humanity.

A more communistic reading of Stiner can be found here https://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everything
Click to expand...

Stirner is in short an individualist, I think he's well worth reading and considering for anyone who is an Anarchist or even just interested in Anarchism regardless of whether they agree with any of what he says. Which of course is why I created the thread. Sadly Stirner and Proudhon are often ignored, at least it seems that way to me.

I think they both offer as much as Bakunin or Kropotkin, both of whose works are widely read today. Proudhon is getting the cold shoulder to some degree because of his opinions on Jews, which is silly but anyway he's still such a major figure in Anarchist thought that he'll never go away, Stirner on the other hand seems to be on the way out. Why?

It's good to see other people here have an interest in him.
 
I like 'moral autonomy'. What I dislike is philosophers who focus wholly on the individual. "Me, me ME!"....If only they would integrate some compassion, altruistic work, etc. So many thinkers these days are hostile, mistrustful towards humanity....However whether we are Quakers, Tolstoyans, or bug-scratchin Jon Birch society types, it's fun to discuss and debate.
 
voodoochile76 said:
I like 'moral autonomy'. What I dislike is philosophers who focus wholly on the individual. "Me, me ME!"....If only they would integrate some compassion, altruistic work, etc. So many thinkers these days are hostile, mistrustful towards humanity....However whether we are Quakers, Tolstoyans, or bug-scratchin Jon Birch society types, it's fun to discuss and debate.
Click to expand...

Certainly, I think that there's a certain type of person who chooses nihilistic thought as an excuse for their arrogance rather than any real belief in such doctrines.

I had to look up Jon Birch, from my new found Wikipedia knowledge I ask: Why bug-scratchin? I thought he must have been a primitivist or something, but Wikipedia says not.
I'm a bit of a bug-scratchin type myself, if we're talking primitivism here and not Mr. Birch. I like the idea of small groups that live very simply that nonetheless have technology such as smartphones and the internet, where do these things come from if we're all lazing about in our grass huts all day? Yet that is what I'd like to see society devolve into. Somehow!
 
LOL Bug scratchin: Because if you talk to a Bircher long enough they'll start tellin you all about the UN, Bilderbergs, Templars, etc. That gets em excited and they start hoppin around and getting antsy.

I agree with you on primitivism. Very much so! :) I read Endgame by D Jensen and liked that. And every time I'm on the Amtrak I see Amish and pick their brains. I tell you those Amish are doin something right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top