M Stirnerist Egoism

Stirnerism /Egoism

So the Stirnerism/Egoism of this Seventeenth Post Political Position rejects every program, idea, abstraction, ideal or theory that is placed above life and individuals as a construct to be served.

This rejection thus is, of rigid organized religious, , the State/Nation, idpol, etc., but also of Anarchism, Primitivism, Communism, Freedom, Reason, Individuality, etc. when these become ideals to which a person is to sacrifice himself/herself, a person’s desires, aspirations, dreams etc.

By way of this ideology I support using ideas, theoretical analysis and reason capacity to abstractly think critically as tools for realizing society’s aims, for reappropriating life and for acting against everything that stands in the way of this reappropriation.

This includes the rejection of easy answers that come to act as blinders to a person’s attempts to examine the reality someone is facing in favor of ongoing questioning and theoretical exploration

Moreover this ideology does not support organizationalism, meaning the idea that any organization can represent exploited individuals or groups, social struggle, revolution or Anarchism ideals.

Therefore by way of this Stirnerism/Egoism 17th, post political position I also am extremely wary of all formal organizations (parties, unions, federations etc) which, (due to their programmatic attributes), take on such a representative role.

This does not I do not support the capacity to organize the specific activities that are necessary to the revolutionary struggle, but rather I am extremely wary of the subjection of the organization of tasks and projects to organizational program formalism. The only task that has ever been proven to require formal organization is formal organization development and maintenance

Stirnerite Egoism rejects the pursuit of devotion to "a great idea, a good cause, a doctrine, a system, a lofty calling." According to Stirner, the egoist does not have a political calling but instead lives their life without concern for "how well or ill humanity may fare thereby." He believed that the only limitation on an individual's rights is their power to obtain what they desire.

Stirner challenged commonly accepted social institutions, including the concept of the State, property as a right, natural rights in general, and even the notion of society, which he considered to be mere "spooks" in the mind. Stirner's goal was to "abolish not only the state but also society as an institution responsible for its members."

Max Stirner critiques institutions within society such as Christianity, Nationalism, Morality, Humanism, Socialism, Liberalism, and even society itself through a heavily individualist lens. He comes to call these ideas phantasms, or as they are more commonly known, spooks. This name comes from Stirner to describe the actions of these institutions as similar to that of ghosts. They are immaterial, but can still have an affect on, or even possess the individual.

Max Stirner built off of the Hegelian Dialectic to form these criticisms, and even to criticize the idea of the Hegelian Dialectic

He sought to bring to the individual's attention that many institutions and ideas are of our own creation and entirely dependent on our perception of them. Stirner likens these institutions to the property of the individual, in that the individual is the one who has the real power over them.

The ideas of the State, Religion, Family, etc. are all the property of the individual, and as such the individual may do as they please with these institutions. He argues the individual should strive to use their control over these institutions in order to demolish them in the pursuit of becoming truly unique. (hence Der Enzige "The Unique" in the title.)

At the turn of the twentieth century, Stirner was often associated with Fred Nietzsche, seen as a precursor who influenced both the style and substance of Nietzsche's work, even though Nietzsche might not have directly read Stirner's writings.

n the 1960s and early 1970s, Max Stirner's ideas experienced a resurgence as a forerunner of Existentialism, particularly aligning with JP Sartre's concept of the self as a 'creative nothing.'

The Self[edit | edit source]

Within Der Einzige und Sein Eigentum, Max Stirner outlines how You the individual are a fully self-contained being that is beyond full comprehension. Arguing that the "creative-nothing" being both the creator and creation of your existence is the "end point of language" "Stirner speaks of the Unique and says immediately: Names name you not.

He articulates the word, so long as he calls it the Unique, but adds nonetheless that the Unique is only a name. He thus means something different from what he says, as perhaps someone who calls you Ludwig does not mean a Ludwig in general, but means You."

Through this, Stirner is perhaps an early advocate of Nihilism - with the first and last words of his magnum opus being "I Have Based My Affair on Nothing".

This is in connection to that fact that their are no "sacred" ideas - no objective facts or meanings to anything - Stirner instead designates the mental concept of the 'creative nothing' - a concept that can be likened to an emtpy bottle.

The creative nothing is the unique individual and their existence, their consciousness, their property, their goals, it is what Stirner calls "It is the end point of our phrase world" in that it isn't an idealised man to get to - like a 'good citizen', or a 'moral man'. Instead Stirner's 'nothing' is the fact that YOU are already YOU - you then can't be anything more - and that the world is made out of your mental and physical creation - you are the creator and yet you yourself are also a creation of yourself.

Every moment you dissolve yourself, move on, or head in a new direction breaking with the creator and becoming a new creation just for you to create something new again. This is the notion of the 'creative' nothing - there isn't anything to speak about other than you in a specific instance - Stirner isn't a man, or a citizen, or a German, or even an egoist, these may perhaps be qualities of Stirner - essences - as Hegel would put them, but He or You are more than your essences.

Because each Unique Individual is non-existant except in their created and creative state - there can't be a single objective or even subjective meaning to anything - the meaning that is used and made by the creative nothing is used up and altered - Stirner says that the egoist rejects pursuit of devotion to "a great idea, a good cause, a doctrine, a system, a lofty calling", arguing that the egoist has no political calling, but rather "lives themselves out" without regard to "how well or ill humanity may fare thereby".

You can't reach the 'creative nothing' it isn't abstract like a sacred idea such as being moral or holy - you already are the 'creative nothing' and there is nothing to do except be it - you can't not be it - like you can be immoral or sinful.

The Self-Interest[edit | edit source]

Stirner begins by arguing that Individuals have causes - God's cause, Humanity's cause, the Nation's cause, Freedom's cause, etc. - and that each of these causes have only themselves in mind, if the Nation only ever aims at improving or furthering the nation - as the cost of soldiers, resources, allies, civil liberties, democracy etc etc., then hasn't the Nation acted in self-interest as an egoist - it only had its own cause in mind - same with God, Humanity, Freedom, Community, the Government, the Family, but never the individual "Shame on the Egoist who thinks only of himself" Max Stirner.

Stirner furthers this by saying that all Individuals do actually serve themselves - either consciously or involuntarily - the latter wishes to throw away their selfishness (usually because it is assumed to be a negative thing) and as such serves other ideas such as a God, or human rights, or the law because they believe it is the right thing to do - and gives them personal security or happiness (which is still benefitting them selfishly - i.e. they are still an egoist) - "Sacred things exist only for the egoist who does not acknowledge himself, the involuntary egoist [...] Because he would like to cease to be an egoist, he looks about in heaven and earth for higher beings to serve and sacrifice himself to; but, however much he shakes and disciplines himself, in the end he does all for his own sake [...]. On this account I call him the involuntary egoist." Max Stirner.

While, the former (conscious egoist) serves themselves and sees these sacred ideas as just that - ideas - and freems themselves able to do whatever is in their power. "I get around a rock that stands in my way, until I have enough powder to blow it up; I get around the laws of a people, until I’ve gathered the strength to overthrow them. Since I cannot grasp the moon, is it therefore supposed to be “sacred” to me, an Astarte? If I could only grasp you, I surely would, and if I find a way to come up to you, you shall not frighten me! You incomprehensible one, you shall remain incomprehensible to me only until I have acquired the power of comprehension for myself and call you my own; I do not surrender before you, but only bide my time." Max Stirner.

The Ego[edit | edit source]

In Stirner's view, the ego is not a fixed, universal, or abstract entity, but rather it is the individual, concrete, and unique self of each person. The ego, for Stirner, is not bound by moral or social constraints and should not be subjugated to any external authority, whether that be the state, religion, or society.

Stirner advocated for what he called "egoism" or "ownness" (Eigentum) in which individuals are encouraged to act in their own self-interest and to reject any form of authority or ideology that seeks to impose itself on the individual. He famously declared that "I am the owner of my might, and I am so when I know myself as unique."

The Ego and the Owner[edit | edit source]

Stirner distinguishes between the ego and the owner. The ego is the unique individual, while the owner is the ego's possessions and properties. Stirner argues that the ego must liberate itself from the owner, which means that it must liberate itself from all of the things that it possesses and owns. This includes one's body, one's mind, one's relationships, and one's identity. He uses the analogy of a slave to illustrate the relationship between the ego and the owner. The slave is owned by the master, and the master has the power to do whatever he wants with the slave. Stirner argues that the ego is the slave of the owner, and the owner has the power to control the ego's life. True freedom for the ego necessitates its emancipation from external influences, be it possessions, relationships, or identity, thereby allowing it to become its own master.

The Ego and the Sacred[edit | edit source]

Stirner is highly critical of the notion of the sacred. He argues that the sacred is a concept that serves to limit and control the individual's autonomy and self-interest. The sacred can be anything considered holy, divine, or transcendent, whether it's religious beliefs, moral principles, social conventions, or other ideologies. Stirner asserts that the sacred is often used to impose obligations and constraints on individuals, limiting their freedom and individuality. For Stirner, the ego's uniqueness should be the highest authority, and it should not be overshadowed by any external, sacred principles.

The Ego and the Union[edit | edit source]

Stirner opposed the state - as an enforcer of institutions, submission, and force. Therefore, "war might rather be declared against establishment itself, the State, not a particular State, not any such thing as the mere condition of the State at the time; it is not another State (e.g. a "people's State") that men aim at, but their union, uniting, this ever-fluid uniting of everything standing. — A State exists even without my co-operation: I am born in it, brought up in it, under obligations to it, and must "do it homage." [huldigen] It takes me up into its "favor," [Huld] and I live by its "grace." Max Stirner.

State and society stand upon morality and rights, with "morality [being] incompatible with egoism, because the former does not allow validity to me, but only to the Man in me. But, if the State is a society of men, not a union of egos each of whom has only himself before his eyes, then it cannot last without morality, and must insist on morality. Therefore we two, the State and I, are enemies. I, the egoist, have not at heart the welfare of this "human society," I sacrifice nothing to it, I only utilize it; but to be able to utilize it completely I transform it rather into my property and my creature; i. e., I annihilate it, and form in its place the Union of Egoists".

Stirner's idea of the "Union of egoists" was first expounded in Der Einzige und Sein Eigentum. The Union is understood as a non-systematic association, which Stirner proposed in contradistinction to the state. The Union is understood as a relation between egoists which is continually renewed by all parties' support through an act of will. The Union requires that all parties participate out of a conscious egoism. If one party silently finds themselves to be suffering but puts up and keeps the appearance, the union has degenerated into something else. This Union is not seen as an authority above a person's own will.

Stirner separates this Union from the previous State and Society through its advent of "use", as opposed to being "used up", "you bring into a union your whole power, your competence, and make yourself count; in a society you are employed, with your working power; in the former you live egoistically, in the latter humanly, i.e. religiously, as a "member in the body of this Lord”; to a society you owe what you have, and are in duty bound to it, are — possessed by "social duties"; a union you utilize, and give it up undutifully and unfaithfully when you see no way to use it further"

Stirner's Economics revolve around his Union of Egoists - which in his opinion unlike the communist commune - doesn't abolish property, saying "Thus, property should not and cannot be done away with; it must rather be snatched from ghostly hands and become my property; then the false awareness, that I cannot entitle myself to as much as I need, will vanish.". However, Stirner also agrees that "If people reach the point where they lose respect for property, then everyone will have property, as all slaves become free people as soon as they no longer respect the master as master. Associations will then, in this matter as well, multiply the individual’s means and secure his contested property." Max Stirner.

Thereby, association within the Union will allow for a larger share of and access to Individual property. Now, Stirner also agrees with William Godwin, The Utopian Socialists, Karl Marx, The Situationists, and Post-Left Anarchists, that work has devasting effects on the uniqueness and individuality of the 'worker' - "If a factory worker has to make himself dead tired for twelve hours and more, he is kept from becoming a human being. All work should have the aim of satisfying the person. Therefore, he must also become a master in it, i.e., be able to create it as a totality. One who only puts on the heads, only draws the wire, etc., in a pin factory, works mechanically, like a machine; he remains a dabbler, doesn’t become a master; his work cannot satisfy him, it can only tire him out. Taken for itself, his work is nothing, has no purpose in itself is nothing complete in itself; he only works into another’s hand, and is used (exploited) by this other." Max Stirner.

Some Anarcho-Syndicalism movements have taken this Union of Egoists as a literal basis for syndicalist communes while other Queer Anarchism groups within Catalonia argued for Stirner's non-systematic approach.

Spooks[edit | edit source]

The conscious realise that God, the Law, Human Rights etc. are only ideas and are not physically tangible or touchable concepts - there is no physical right to point at or no Law in a room somewhere - as such the conscious egoist accepts that these ideas are solely human constructs and mental creations made to keep the Individual egoist down. "As I find myself behind things, that is, as mind, so I must later also find myself behind thoughts, namely, as their creator and owner. In the time of mind, thoughts grew in me until they were over my head, though they were its offspring; they hovered about me and shook me like the fever dreams, a horrifying power. The thoughts had become embodied for themselves, were ghosts, such as God, emperor, pope, fatherland, etc. If I destroy their embodiment, then I take them back into my own, and say: “I alone am embodied.” And now I take the world as what it is to me, as mine, as my property: I relate everything to myself." Max Stirner.

Stirner likens these concepts to ghosts or spirits - spectres and spooks - because they are only ever a made-up idea that the Individual has created, the idea of a good citizen is defined by people and individuals and yet, it has become a corporeal and existing concept and phenomena that compels people to act in accordance. Individuals are haunted by their own ideas, the idea has become real and now forces us to follow it. We decided what a good citizen was and made up the consequences for breaking this "rule" and now we have trapped ourselves under our own ideas "I can't break that rule" - "well why not" - "because the rule says so" - "the rule you made up". It is like playing a schoolyard game and failing to realise we made up the rules of the game and can change them at any time and free ourselves.

The Law may exist and be utilised but nothing will happen if it is broken until someone acts upon it - and thus only physical action or might is the tool of the egoist. The Law is enforced by actors - police, courts, citizens, governments, militaries etc. Only illegal if one gets caught - only a criminal if there is such a thing as a crime, only a sinner in the face of a sin. "State behavior is an act of violence, and it calls its violence “legal right”; that of the individual, “crime.”" Max Stirner. Stirner says that sinful and Illegal activities are only negative when they are called negative... "Against the “sacred,” the egoist is always a sinner; toward the “sacred,” he can’t become anything other than — a criminal.". he uses an example that "if a European kills a crocodile, he acts as an egoist against crocodiles, but he has no scruples about doing this, and he is not accused of “sin” for it. If instead an ancient Egyptian, who considered the crocodile to be sacred, had nonetheless killed one in self-defense, he would have, indeed, defended his skin as an egoist, but at the same time, he would have committed a sin; his egoism would have been sin, — he, the egoist, a sinner. — From this, it should be obvious that the egoist is necessarily a sinner before what is “sacred,” before what is “higher”; if he asserts his egoism against the sacred, this is, as such, a sin." Max Stirner.

Character Ideal[edit | edit source]

Stirner's philosophy rejects the concept of "essentialist perfectionism," which assigns value to specific traits based on their alignment with an idealized human nature. Instead, he advocates an alternative notion known as the "character ideal." This character ideal is centered on the self-ruling individual, whose perfection is esteemed regardless of its connection to happiness or pleasure. In other words, Stirner places immense value on the idea of an individual who is autonomous and exercises self-governance, irrespective of whether this autonomy leads to personal satisfaction.

Egoism as the Future[edit | edit source]

Stirner's historical analysis involves drawing parallels to portray egoism as a more advanced form of civilization. He inverts the traditional social contract idea, suggesting that it is society's membership, rather than isolation, that represents humankind's "state of nature." He also uses the analogy of a mother and her child to illustrate the evolving relationship between the individual and society. The individual, like a maturing child, must free themselves from the claims of society (the mother) in order to escape subjugation.

Stirner associates non-egoistic society with relationships of "belonging," which he sees as subjugating individuals. For instance, he argues that family ties bind a person, and he tends to view such connections as oppressive rather than secure or comforting.

Egoist Morality[edit | edit source]

The concept of "egoism" in Stirner's works is not always straightforward. While he is occasionally seen as a psychological egoist, claiming that all actions are motivated by self-interest, this characterization can be questioned. Stirner highlights the opposition between egoistic and non-egoistic forms of experience. He even considers adopting the stance of psychological egoism at one point but rejects it. For Stirner, self-interested actions should not be equated with egoism. Stirner's egoism is more about individual self-rule or autonomy, which includes avoiding subordination to others and cultivating emotional detachment from one's own desires and ideas.

Stirner's rejection of morality is not a rejection of values as a whole. He distinguishes between moral and non-moral goods, acknowledging that certain character traits and behaviors should be positively assessed, even though they do not involve obligations to others. He values "ownness" above all else and rejects legitimate obligations to others, including voluntary ones. He places great importance on individual self-rule and interprets it in a stringent and unique manner.

Property[edit | edit source]

For Stirner property was not a case of natural rights or promised deeds of property, it only existed as an extension of the Individual: "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property. [...] What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing" and "I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!"

Property to the Unique comes from no right, from the very fact that no "right" can stop the Unique from actually de facto owning a piece of property, You have the ownership no matter how many legal or written documents claim otherwise - "No right lying outside my power legitimizes me, but only my power; if I no longer have this, then the thing disappears from me. When the Romans had no more power against the Germanic peoples, the Roman world empire belonged to the latter, and it would sound ridiculous for one to insist that the Romans still remained the real owners. To whoever knows how to take and hold the thing, it belongs, until someone takes it away from him, as freedom belongs to the one who takes it." Max Stirner.

Property in this sense can only exist in possession and personal property - ruling out the possibility of state or authority given property "Therefore it pays strict attention not only to not letting me count, but also to thwarting what is mine. In the state, there is no—property, i.e., no property of the individual, but only state property. I have what I have only through the state, as I am what I am only through it. My private property is only what the state leaves to me of its own, in that it cuts off other state members from it (makes it private); it is state property." Max Stirner. Here, it is clear that capitalists actually have no property of their own - only that which is granted to them by the powers at be. But neither can the answer be to abolish Individual property in favor of the community, as opposed to the state - "If one socialistically says, society gives me what I need,—then the egoist says, I take what I need.Thus, property should not and cannot be done away with; it must rather be snatched from ghostly hands and become my property; then the false awareness, that I cannot entitle myself to as much as I need, will vanish." Max Stirner.

Here, property becomes a means of existence - only gartering what one wants and needs, removing excess, hoarding, accumulation, "hereditary stamps", etc. In this individuals can take control over their own lives and remove the alien and abstract ties such as property "rights", "collective" property and such - instead "If people reach the point where they lose respect for property, then everyone will have property, as all slaves become free people as soon as they no longer respect the master as master. Associations will then, in this matter as well, multiply the individual’s means and secure his contested property." Max Stirner. In this respect Individuals can associate and combine property to meet ends with other Individuals. Always having the ability to defend their property agaisnt this collective and voluntary will.

Although he [Stirner] was not an anarchist, he preferred a political-economic social condition that was anti-statist, anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian completely void of authoritarian monopolies (whether they positioned themselves as property or sovereignty) which were the enemies of individual liberation. Stirner's egoism is all about freeing the individual from the domination of property monopolists such as monarchs, governments, or industrialists while at the same time it positions itself against the anti-individualist nature of the traditional political left. “What every one requires, every one should also take a hand in procuring and producing.” This view on property has been taken by some to be very Communistic, thus sparking movements such as Ego-Communism and Post-Left.

However, Stirner also proposes that most commonly accepted social institutions—including the notion of state, property as a right, natural rights in general and the very notion of society—are mere illusions - spooks, or ghosts in the mind, saying of society that "the individuals are its reality". Stirner wants to "abolish not only the state but also society as an institution responsible for its members". Stirner opposed both communism and capitalism stating that:

"All attempts to enact rational laws about property have put out from the bay of love into a desolate sea of regulations. Even Socialism and Communism cannot be excepted from this. Everyone one is to be provided with adequate means, for which it is little to the point whether one socialistically finds them still in a personal property, or communistically draws them from a community of goods. The individual's mind in this remains the same; it remains a mind of dependence. The distributing board of equity lets me have only what the sense of equity, its loving care for all, prescribes. For me, the individual, there lies no less of a check in collective wealth than in that of individual others; neither that is mine, nor this: whether the wealth belongs to the collectivity, which confers part of it on me, or to individual possessors, is for me the same constraint, as I cannot decide about either of the two. One the Contrary, Communism, by the abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still more into dependence on another, viz., on the generality or collectivity; and, loudly as it always attacks the "State," what it intends is itself again a State, a status, a condition hindering my free movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts against the pressure I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity. Egoism takes another way to root out the non-possessing rabble. It does not say: Wait for what the board of equity will—bestow on you in the name of the collectivity (for such bestowal took place in "States" from the most ancient times, each receiving "according to his desert," and therefore according to the measure in which each was able to deserve it, to acquire it by service), but: Take hold, and take what you require! With this the war of all against all is declared. I alone decide what I will have."

Revolution[edit | edit source]

Revolutionary actions, especially when it comes to the overturning of capitalism, i.e. Marxism, stem from the Hegelian notion that the evolution of society leads to an idealised outcome - an end in the dialectic. Marx himself - as much as he argues that he separated himself from the Young Hegelians and Hegel himself, advocated for revolutionary change towards this ideal and places the catalyst of revolution in the hands of the proletariat. The disillusionment of religion, capitalism, and the state, has led to the illusionment of yet more ideals - revolution, communism, anarchism, freedom, liberty, etc etc. The creation of new higher essences - the individual is important in the furtherance of ideals, the individual should have the goal of revolution towards these ideas - they cannot give up the revolution - it is their life's calling.

Stirner argues that the revolutionary "harbors the most irreconcilable hostility toward heaven, and yet builds a new heaven daily: piling heaven upon heaven, he only crushes one with another", the revolutionary only ever aims to revolutionise their ideal society - forgetting about the previous revolutionaries. He went further, saying that "the revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on 'institutions'. It is not a fight against the established [...] it is only a working forth of me out of the established. [...] Now, as my object is not an overthrow of the established order but my elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not political or social but (as directed toward myself and my ownness alone) an egoistic purpose indeed."

"Revolution and insurrection should not be looked upon as synonymous. The former consists in a radical change of conditions, of the prevailing condition or status, the state or society, and is therefore a political or social act; the latter indeed has a transformation of conditions as its inevitable result, but doesn’t start from it, but from the discontent of human beings with themselves; it is not an armed uprising, but a rising up of individuals, a getting up, without regard to the arrangements that spring from it. The revolution isaimed at new arrangements, while the insurrection leads us to no longer let ourselves be arranged, but rather to arrange ourselves, and sets no radiant hopes on “institutions.” It is not a fight against the established, since, if it prospers, the established will collapse of itself; it is only a working of my way out of the established. If I leave the established, it is dead and falls into decay. Since now my aim is not the overthrow of the established order but my rising up above it, so my intention and action are not a political or social intention and action, but, since they are directed solely toward me and my ownness, an egoistic intention and action."

The revolution commands one to make arrangements; the insurrection demands that one stand or raise himself up. What constitution was to be chosen?—this question busied revolutionary heads, and the entire political period is bubbling with constitutional fights and constitutional questions, as the social talents too were unusually inventive about social arrangements (phalansteries and the like). The insurrectionist strives to become constitutionless" Max Stirner. The goal here should then be to let Individuals create their own revolutionary lives - Stirner says that the unique individual rejects pursuit of devotion to "a great idea, a good cause, a doctrine, a system, a lofty calling", arguing that the egoist has no political calling, but rather "lives themselves out" without regard to "how well or ill humanity may fare thereby". This rebellion can take any form, but no cards can be left off the table for the insurrectionist - violence, peace, gradualism, separation & succession, the Individual here must "rebel, rise up".

Stirner here argues that Jesus Christ was not a revolutionary, but rather an insurrectionist, a rebel, "the time [in which Jesus lived] was politically so agitated that, as is said in the gospels, people thought they could not accuse the founder of Christianity more successfully than if they arraigned him for 'political intrigue', and yet the same gospels report that he was precisely the one who took the least part in these political doings. But why was he not a revolutionary, not a demagogue, as the Jews would gladly have seen him? [...] Because he expected no salvation from a change of conditions, and this whole business was indifferent to him. He was not a revolutionary, like Caesar, but an insurgent: not a state-overturner, but one who straightened himself up. [...] [Jesus] was not carrying on any liberal or political fight against the established authorities, but wanted to walk his own way, untroubled about, and undisturbed by, these authorities. [...] But, even though not a ringleader of popular mutiny, not a demagogue or revolutionary, he (and every one of the ancient Christians) was so much the more an insurgent who lifted himself above everything that seemed so sublime to the government and its opponents, and absolved himself from everything that they remained bound to [...]; precisely because he put from him the upsetting of the established, he was its deadly enemy and real annihilator[.]"

Dogma[edit | edit source]

As with the classical sceptics before him, Stirner's method of self-liberation is opposed to faith or belief and he envisions a life free from "dogmatic presuppositions" or any "fixed standpoint". It is not merely Christian dogma that his thought repudiates, but also a wide variety of European atheist ideologies that are condemned as crypto-Christian for putting ideas in an equivalent role:

"Among many transformations, the Holy Spirit became in time the 'absolute idea' [in Hegelian philosophy], which again in manifold refractions split into the different ideas of philanthropy, reasonableness, civic virtue, and so on. [...] Antiquity, at its close, had gained its ownership of the world only when it had broken the world's overpoweringness and 'divinity', recognised the world's powerlessness and 'vanity'. [...] [The philosophers of our time say] Concepts are to decide everywhere, concepts to regulate life, concepts to rule. This is the religious world [of our time], to which Hegel gave a systematic expression, bringing method into the nonsense and completing the conceptual precepts into a rounded, firmly-based dogmatic. Everything is sung according to concepts and the real man, I, am compelled to live according to these conceptual laws. [...] Liberalism simply replaced Christian concepts with humanist ones; human instead of divine, political instead of ecclesiastical, 'scientific' instead of doctrinal etc."

What Stirner proposes is not that concepts should rule people, but that people should rule concepts. The "nothingness" of all truth is rooted in the "nothingness" of the self because the ego is the criterion of (dogmatic) truth. Again, Stirner seems closely comparable to the sceptics in that his radical epistemology directs us to emphasise empirical experience (the "unmediated" relationship of mind as world and world as mind), but it leaves only a very limited validity to the category of "truth". When we regard the impressions of the senses with detachment, simply for what they are (e.g. neither good nor evil), we may still correctly assign truth to them. "Truths are material, like vegetables and weeds; as to whether vegetable or weed, the decision lies in me."

Schools of thought and regional variants[edit | edit source]

Ego-Nihilism Ego-Nihilism is a philosophy that mixes Stirnerite egoism with nihilism. Ego-nihilism isn't a nihilist in a specific way, for example, existential nihilist. He is instead a total nihilist, meaning he applies nihilism to everything, leading to a path of total negation. He rejects all value, truth, knowledge, ideology, society, morality, organization, and all other belief. Ego-nihilism believes that nothing is and nothing ever was. He believes reality itself is an illusion which has sprouted from the spontaneous and ever-fluid flow of absolute nothingness. Ego-nihilism sees this absence as an instrument of self-liberation. Ego-nihilism takes Stirner's word "All Things Are Nothing To Me" to the most literal interpretation. Jun Tsuji thought

Also includes:

Stirnerite Marxism Collapse

"You long for freedom? You fools! If you took might, freedom would come of itself."

Anarcho-Egoism, or Egoist Anarchism, often shortened as simply Egoism, is an off-the-compass libertarian unity ideology or anarchist school of thought that arose out of the philosophy of Max Stirner, a 19th-century philosopher. It emphasizes the individual over any other kind of guiding principle; that is, the individual should live themselves out, not bound to any political calling. It proposes that most commonly accepted social institutions—including the notion of State, property as a right, natural rights in general and the very notion of society—were mere "spooks" or "phantasms" in the mind. Stirner's philosophy though being individualist, has influenced some libertarian communists and anarcho-communists. Forms of libertarian communism such as insurrectionary anarchism are influenced by Stirner.

Contemporary Egoism

In the United Kingdom, Herbert Read was influenced highly by egoism as he later came close to existentialism. In Read's Education Through Art (1943), David Goodway writes: "Here we have the egoism of Max Stirner assimilated in the anarchist communism of Peter Kropotkin". He cites Read for this affirmation which shows egoism's influence: "Uniqueness has no practical value in isolation. One of the most certain lessons of modern psychology and of recent historical experiences, is that education must be a process, not only of individuation, but also of integration, which is the reconciliation of individual uniqueness with social unity [...] the individual will be "good" in the degree that his individuality is realized within the organic wholeness of the community."

In the 1980s, in the United States emerged the tendency of post-left anarchy which was influenced profoundly by egoism in aspects such as the critique of ideology. Bob Black and Feral Faun/Wolfi Landstreicher also strongly adhere to Stirnerist egoism.

Egoism has also had a strong influence on insurrectionary anarchism as can be seen in the work of Wolfi Landstreicher and Alfredo Bonanno. Bonanno has written on Stirner in works such as Max Stirner and Max Stirner und der Anarchismus.

In the hybrid of post-structuralism and anarchism called post-anarchism, the Australian political theorist Saul Newman has written a lot on Stirner and his similarities to post-structuralism. Newman has published several essays on Stirner. War on the State: Stirner and Deleuze's Anarchism and Empiricism, Pluralism, and Politics in Deleuze and Stirner discusses what he sees are similarities between Stirner's thought and that of Gilles Deleuze linking Egoism to Dark Deleuze-ism (also see here)/ Deleuzoguattarianism . In Spectres of Stirner: A Contemporary Critique of Ideology, he discusses the conception of ideology in Stirner. In Stirner and Foucault: Toward a Post-Kantian Freedom, similarities between Stirner and Michel Foucault. He also wrote the book Max Stirner which is a collection of essays on Stirner's post-structuralism.

Max Stirner says that the egoist rejects pursuit of devotion to "a great idea, a good cause, a doctrine, a system, a lofty calling", arguing that the egoist has no political calling, but rather "lives themselves out" without regard to "how well or ill humanity may fare thereby". You can't reach the 'creative nothing' it isn't abstract like a sacred idea such as being moral or holy - you already are the 'creative nothing' and there is nothing to do except be it - you can't not be it - like you can be immoral or sinful.

Spooks

The Law may exist and be utilised but nothing will happen if it is broken until someone acts upon it - and thus only physical action or might is the tool of the egoist.

The Law is enforced by actors - police, courts, citizens, governments, militaries etc. Only illegal if one gets caught - only a criminal if there is such a thing as a crime, only a sinner in the face of a sin. "State behavior is an act of violence, and it calls its violence “legal right”; that of the individual, “crime.”" Max Stirner.

Stirner says that sinful and Illegal activities are only negative when they are called negative... "Against the “sacred,” the egoist is always a sinner; toward the “sacred,” he can’t become anything other than — a criminal.". he uses an example that "if a European kills a crocodile, he acts as an egoist against crocodiles, but he has no scruples about doing this, and he is not accused of “sin” for it. If instead an ancient Egyptian, who considered the crocodile to be sacred, had nonetheless killed one in self-defense, he would have, indeed, defended his skin as an egoist, but at the same time, he would have committed a sin; his egoism would have been sin, — he, the egoist, a sinner. — From this, it should be obvious that the egoist is necessarily a sinner before what is “sacred,” before what is “higher”; if he asserts his egoism against the sacred, this is, as such, a sin." Max Stirner.

However, Max Stirner also proposes that most commonly accepted social institutions—including the notion of state, property as a right, natural rights in general and the very notion of society—are mere illusions - spooks, or ghosts in the mind, saying of society that "the individuals are its reality". Stirner wants to "abolish not only the state but also society as an institution responsible for its members". Stirner opposed both communism and capitalism stating that:

Union of Egoists

Revolution

Dogma

Where do human rights come from? What is a human right if it is not something someone somewhere has agreed upon is a human right? Why should the unique respect of another person claims is a human right? Human Rights can be seen as a spook.(or at best a good spook)

Though this is not to say that we should not go around trampling on other peoples human rights.

Though since human rights are for all intents and purposes simply a form of morality they are definitely spooks

The anticedent of the current conception of human rights was the sense of natural rights and natural law, which is a philosophical construction that specific stuff are so foundational they are viewed as inalienable, but obviously they are routinely alienated so that hasn't precisely helped us much. But essentially a human right is only a moral statement that is looked at as sacred in someway, and so people who think about human and natural rights would likley be described as invollentary egoists.

"Sacred things exist only for the egoist who does not acknowledge himself, the involuntary egoist, for him who is always looking after his own and yet does not count himself as the highest being, who serves only himself and at the same time always thinks he is serving a higher being... ...Because he would like to cease to be an egoist, he looks about in heaven and earth for higher beings to serve and sacrifice himself to; but, however much he shakes and disciplines himself, in the end he does all for his own sake, and the disreputable egoism will not come off him. On this account I call him the involuntary egoist." The ego and his own - Benjamin Tucker translation.

And is it not sort of arbitrary, to talk of morality, and to elevate it so that this moral conception is so fundamental as to no longer being a moral, it is a right, from nature itself. Remember egoism rejects the concept of morality itself. Morality is also a spook, and so it limits the individual and causes them to remain shackled, even more so than with the law. The law is enforced by violence, morality is enforced by the individuals own mind.

All Individuals have interests, many of whom have shared interests, which still exist when we do not pretend that there are "human rights" associated with them.

Egoism is not the rejection of empathy. Morality might be a spook, at least with our understanding of it. On the Genealogy of Morals by Frederich Nietzsche he discusses such a topic perfectly, "Reason, seriousness, mastery over the emotions, the whole murky affair goes by the name of thought, all the privileges and showpeices of man: what a high price has been paid for them! How much blood and horror is at the bottom of all 'good things'!" (Pdf for On the Genealogy of Morality By Nietzche)

Good and evil as a social dogma are not aligned with Egoism. However, rejecting empathy is rejecting what makes us all human. Egoism is not a rejection of being human

Pedos, for instance undoubtedly harm people physically, emotionally, and mentally. I, as a human being with empathy, do not enjoy that. I love my fellow man/woman, I don't want my fellow man/woman to get hurt. Max Stirner also says something similar, "I love men/women too — not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.” I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too; I can kill them, not torture them."

To have empathy is among the few things that has saved us. To be huddled around a fire in the cold night 42,000 years ago is what kept people alive. Helping the sick, and hurt, and elderly is not inherently 'morally' good, but it is empathetic. TREY the Explainer has a good video about this.

Max Stirner/Egoism:

Anti-Ethic Ethics
Anarcho-Autocracy

The first post-structuralist
First post-leftist

Spook Buster

Lumpenproletarian Individualism

Chaotic Neutral (D&D alignment)

Dialectical Nihilist
Narrow Individualism
~~Society Liver~~

M Stirnerism/Egoism influenced by:

Influenced by:

Anti-Clericalism

Anti-Democracy
Anti-Humanism
Anti-Liberalism
Anti-Republicanism
Philosophical Anarchi

M Stirnerism/Egoism influenced:

Anarcho-Individualism
Anarcho-Syndicalism (Some)

Marxism
Post-Anarchism
Austromarxism (Max Adler)^[Note

Queer Anarchism
Russian Nihilism

Soulism
Synthesis Anarchism

Stirnerism ideology also includes:

Collapse

Agnostic Deism
Classical Liberalism
Cynicism
Epicureanism
Fichtean Idealism
German Idealism
German Romanticism
Hegelianism
Individualism
Libertinism (Allegedly) ^{[Note 1]}
Mutualism
Republicanism
Taoist Anarchism (Allegedly)^{[Note 2]}
Utopian Socialism
Young Hegelianism
Ego Mutualism:
Ego-Mutualism
Collapse
- Anarcho-Individualism
- Mutualism
- Ricardian Socialism
- Queer Egoism
  Collapse
  Anarcho-Individualism
  Queer Anarchism : I also support the Max Stirner inspired brand of Queer Anarchism . I support their notion of (and embracing) radical individualism that is influenced by individual philosophers like Max Stirner.
  In particular I support Queer Anarchists using Max Stirner’s non-systematic approach, radicalism and direct action. I like how queer anarchists organized and played a major role in the WTO protests and anti-globalization movement.