Add new comment

"I doubt that Stirner would have agreed with Blumenthal’s integration of his work with that of Marx."

likely, but they may have appreciated Blumenfeld's (who the fuck is Blumenthal?) dedicated engagement with their writing and, in somewhat Stirnerian fashion, attempt a re-shaping of their ideas for their own purposes. even if those purposes for Blumenfeld are some form of anti-state communism. instead of following suit, Price prefers to parrot poorly understood argumentation with the agenda of discrediting Stirner's philosophy as unclear and not anarchist. which is true to be fair, since for Price not anarchist means not socialist.

"His primary focus was on the self-development of the I, by itself."

I will have to assume Price either has not read Stirner's writing at all, or is simply ignoring the role of intercourse in Stirner's philosophy. they are at least aware of their advocacy for an association of uniques, so not sure where "by itself" is coming from other than bad reading or intentional misrepresentation.

"A completely nonmoral view of socialism has led many socialists to accept the totalitarian, mass-murdering, Stalinist regimes as 'socialist.'..If Marx developed his nonmoral approach through responding to Stirner (as Blumenthal suggests), then Stirner’s influence was not all positive."

Price's suggestion that Stirner's amorality may have been responsible for Stalinism shows their cards: not only a desire to connect Stirner's ideas to totalitarian Marxism, but their comprehension of morality as well.

more of Price's understanding of morality: "The ruling rich and their minions are not motivated by Christian or democratic ideals, whatever they say."

arent they? this is Stirner's critique. not a surprise that Price would disagree, whether they comprehend it or not. it doesnt seem they want to, but certainly want to speak authoritatively about it.