oh sweet, you mentioned maximus. one of THE most important. but maximus is not for everyone, as his logic is of such a higher order and cleanliness that it is generally unapproachable by most people. in a sense, too, one doesn’t find the philosophy of stirner, rather it finds you… and there are not many people who become eligible for it.
in philosophy he represents a limit which sits in contradistinction to the philosophy of marx. these two can be thought of as the final possibilities for ethics, and most people sit unwittingly somewhere in the middle… this middle ground being a field of contradiction and confusion (largely due to the fault of philosophy). one is either forever approaching stirner or marx, and there is no third alternative for an honest and clear minded philosophy.
let me give you an example of a system which stopping short of that final marxist limit stands in a state of ethical irresolvability. capitalism. by virtue of its principles, it cannot be ethical in the sense that it purports to be. that is to say, it cannot stand by its own tenants and still be able to function; it requires that a number of people fail at realizing its greatest privilege so that a number of others can realize it (at the expense of those others). in this way, the classes it creates cannot share any ethical solidarity and will forever have conflicting interests. here is the collapse of principle and the direct, unavoidable line to stirner; if this particular abstraction of the ‘state’ cannot sustain itself through the ethical cooperation of individuals who share the same interests, it is for all intent and purposes nullified. if the social contract is nullified, there is no longer a collectivity, but a war between two classes; the bourgeois and proletariat. and if this is the case (and it is), one cannot avoid the conclusion of stirner. one either remains a confused fool somewhere in the middle, or one becomes a stirnerite or a marxist. other ‘political’ philosophers are irrelevant filler materials that sit somewhere on this line between stirner and marx. any possible political philosophy approaches one of the other, inevitably.
then at the other end of this spectrum is marx, who represents the correction of this irreconcilable conflict that capitalism has created, and a solution to the stirnerite conclusion (on which capitalism unwittingly rests). the great ‘meanwhile’ of the world is spent approaching one or the other, as there is simply no other direction it can go.
this is why the philosophies of stirner and marx are the alpha and omega of political philosophy. either absolute resolution to ethics, or absolute destruction. to resolve ethics, societies must be for, and run by, the working class. don’t mistake what i say; ethics doesn’t need to be resolved… but if it is going to be, this is the only way. anyone who wishes to resolve ethics and believes otherwise is confused and/or irrelevant.
contrarily, anyone who wishes not to resolve ethics, wishes not to approach marx, but does not finally reach stirner, remains an involuntary egoist. the ‘cause’ for which they stand - in this case the illusory notion of ‘equality of privilege’ in the tenants of capitalist philosophy - is a spook, an abstraction, a false idea. and it is such because of philosophy.
therefore one is, essentially, either a stirnerite (involuntary or voluntary egoist) or a marxist. you’ll note that it was not for nothing that stirner’s work provoked a great sense of emergency in marx and engels, who immediately responded to the danger they had discovered in stirner. they saw clearly the logical extreme that stirnerism revealed and quickly set out prevent it from happening.
the reason why you might characterize stirnerism as ‘degenerate’ is because you are shortsighted of its wisdom; as i said, it isn’t for everyone. and i imagine stirner would be very amused if he logged in and saw that comment: ‘here is another ‘philosopher’ running in place, not knowing from whence he came or where he’s going. still believing there is any ‘solution’ to the world’s ethical problems other than a direct approach to marx, the guy opposite me on the spectrum.’
alpha and omega, OG. everything else is just half-wit nonsense in between. the bread and butter of that eloquent babbler, the ‘phi-lost-opher’.