I book is intentionally confusing, but otherwise not bad. Not sure why communists like him.

Stirner himself was a based troll but his followers are cringe. His ideology and book was mostly just a troll against his leftist buddies. He hung out with leftists but he never agreed with them, instead he very annoyingly nitpicked at their ideas to piss them off. His name wasn't even Max, that was just a surname to piss off Marx. If you were to take his ideas seriously, you would eventually end up with an agorist society. >>4651 >Not sure why communists like him. Because they lack basic reading comprehension. Stirner very vocally said on the book that he thought communism was the worst idea he had ever heard, and that he'd even prefer their current system (authoritarian capitalism) over communism.

>>4652 Do you have a direct quote because that would probably prove useful in certain arguments. Stirner comes across as a disingenuous pedant to me (as most "left aligned" "intellectuals" do) but using his own words to give his fanboys butthurt seems like it would be useful.

>>4653 He wrote this in philosophical reactionaries. >«Do you philosophers actually have an inkling that you have been beaten with your own weapons? Nothing but an inkling. What retort can you hearty fellows make against it, when I again dialectically demolish what you have just dialectically put up? You have shown me with what “eloquence” one can make all into nothing and nothing into all, black into white and white into black. What do you have against it, when I turn your neat trick back on you? But with the dialectical trick of a philosophy of nature, neither you nor I will cancel the great facts of modern natural research, no more than Schelling and Hegel did». He basically shits on Hegelian dialectics which are the basis of leftist thought, by saying "By using your own fucking logic I have turned the dialectics against you, what will you do about it cunts?"