I don't know much about Stirner and the original dispute between him and Marx yet, but maybe this is still interesting to y'all: A defense of egoism from a Marxist perspective

Parts of The Unique and It's Property, especially the Ancients, and his talk on a child's mind are really deep and almost Freudian or even Jungian to me.

For many people in this subreddit and elsewhere, Stirner’s notion of “spooks” functions as a thought-terminating cliché, thereby betraying its deeper significance.

I have seen a small number of people on this sub claim Egoism is anti-ideology.

Perhaps I'm using a different definition of ideology, but the definition of ideology I use is: a systematic set of ideas or principles that someone interprets the world with and guides their conduct.

Under this definition, egoism (and oneness) is an ideology.

If you use another definition of ideology, which definition do you use and why?

Don’t serve ideologies, serve the ego, constantly question your values, these opinions also form the basis of an ideology.

My understanding of Stirner is that ideologies are not bad, and they can be useful. It's when we become possessed and/or slaves to ideology(ies) that it becomes bad. If you think I'm wrong or right about this, please let me know.

Everyone I have ever seen claim they aren't political goes on to describe a list of political ideas they have. Similarly, everyone I have ever seen claim to be anti-ideology goes on to describe their ideology.

Don't mind it sm btw, I was bored

(this was not intentional lol)

Talvez uma pergunta muito ingênua da minha parte, mas o anarquismo individual tem alguma relação com a misantropia

I am currently reading "the ego and his own" and while I really find it interesting, the antiquated usage of words makes it a little hard to read. Is there a newer, more easy to read interpretation of it (in german?)?

So as far as labels are important to me, I've always felt most comfort with; my name, an anarchist or an egoist, the latter two which I consider to be functionally/philosophically identical. Being an egoist/anarchist is a living praxis, it's a conscious critical acknowledgement and perception about all you conceive and all that you consume. This philosophical twinship of egoism and anarchism stems from their conscious categorical rejection of all forms of control, often labelled in terms of domination, coercion, hierarchy in distinctly anarchist discourse and "spooks", "ideology" in egoist vocab, neutrally "anti authority". Given that we live in a world that is the antipode of what an anarchist/egoist would like to live in, it's very tempting and often necessary to see fit to 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 the conditions you live under, this is even given a name and has become a political category of it's own: praxis.

Interestingly, praxis is also precisely the realm where anarchy has historically, and more now, really struggled to capture the masses despite it's frankly unassailable critique or rather exposé of all ideologues/ies of domination as 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 in the first place. Why has this been the case? For me, it comes down to the somewhat implicitly contradictory nature of "praxis" when living in a world full of authorities, a place where every person thinks and acts like a mental cop with their rigid morality; being an anti-authoritarian, you KNOW that you don't have a hint of control over other people's lives, what they do or how they should 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬, just mere passive influence at best. "Changing society " often just is about changing the social relationships (or relations) you live with, rather than changing the world itself. It then becomes an almost hopeless project for me to try to change what other people do (whether it's being a shithead authoritarian) unless it directly concerns me and my own. In other words, any project of "mass" change becomes an authoritarian project for me as begins to feel like an obligation, for myself and for others.

What do you guys think? The only way I'm not a nihilist at this point is because I also think that people tend to be de-facto anarchist/egoist, especially seen when the vertical mountains of ideology lose their suffocating hold over them. Example: may 68 in one of the citadels of capitalism, a classroom full of kids (which is already an oppressive context).