• deathtoreddit@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    The thing is, with Stirner, it seems to me if the communist union of egoists couldn’t continue, at the temporary expense of one of their egos, then it would cease to be a union of egoists, and thus he’d reject any such organization of it…

    • novibe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s making his thought into something it definitely is not. It’s not a system. The idea of the union of egoists is that it is the only possible truly free association between people. Under communism, all associations would be union of egoists, and no one would ever think about them or even have that name for them. They would just exist, and do things with other people for different purposes at different times, always only when it’s beneficial to all involved, and stopping when it stops being beneficial for any party.

      Or isn’t communism the total liberation of the individual? (among other things ofc, but to me it was always the main one tbh, in how I understand things - not a libertarian or anything)

      • deathtoreddit@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Under communism, all associations would be union of egoists, and no one would ever think about them or even have that name for them. They would just exist, and do things with other people for different purposes at different times, always only when it’s beneficial to all involved, and stopping when it stops being beneficial for any party.

        Ah okey…