This position is unclear:
This doesn’t exclude general improvement. When the country is electrified, or when plumbing becomes generally available, in the end, even the poorest benefit.
Capitalism never promised “freedom for” all things for all people. Rather, its principle was “freedom from” paternalist or royal interference. For instance, there was a law forbidding the rich from selling their estates (disposition, or right to use, but not to “alienate” property) in England before laissez-faire.
That those with talent in commerce will be free to benefit from those favoured qualities.
What are we to understand it as granting, that is then nullifiable? If it grants a certain freedom from arbitrary acts of the officials, to be heard in court, and “pursuit” of happiness. Or, in some cases, property rights.
In Stirner the principle of happiness or the final goal of life would be idiosyncratic. Ergo, no collective rationality, and a fortiori no collective principles. However, in Marx, the same thing is true only after History begins. Marx claims that we are not yet in human history properly. Only if history begins, after the classes dissolution into the universal human collective of “universal man”(men) as individuals (painting in the morning, riding in the afternoon, selling nude photos in the evening glow under the deep shadows of the crumpled hills).
Do you want to understand Stirner as merely “private” life? That would presuppose the “reality” of Marxist realism as truth. Stirner doesn’t do that, he says each one to their own (reality).
From this point of view, far from being opposites, the views are the same. Each to their own truth. Power comes in as one’s own, because it must to make a view “positive”, collective, assimilating.
Marx requires the End of History through the class conflict, he tends towards a false postion, Stirner does not. Marx Engels say, Feuerbach is “crude” as hell. Because he pushes too eagerly with big hands into the materialist view, everything is “base”, “superstructure” or Geist must be burnt away. Marx is never on solid ground with the = 'The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." He repudiates it himself many times. He “stands on his head” and dances in bewildered sympathy with Nietzsche his antipode. He keeps asking, what interpretation do we need to move the raggedy men, the vulgar hoard comprising the nations, in the right direction? Lenin settled this by telling the peasants Communism meant getting allocated some land. Simple bribery as motivation. Stirner isn’t moving in the space of “positive” power of ideology or wisdom as worldview. The “positivity” is drained out of the individual who is basically solipsistic. The solipsistic position is not related to the “the world is still there when I die”, as history, in its ascending branch (Engles), or, in its “grand style” and voracious lecherousness (Nietzsche).