4
<TITLE>G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner?</TITLE>
8
<H1>G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner?</h1>
10
To some extent, Stirner's work <b>The Ego and Its Own</b> is like a Rorschach
11
test. Depending on the reader's psychology, he or she can interpret it in
12
drastically different ways. Hence, some have used Stirner's ideas to
13
defend capitalism, while others have used them to argue for
14
anarcho-syndicalism. For example, many in the anarchist movement in
15
Glasgow, Scotland, took Stirner's <i>"Union of Egoists"</i> literally as the
16
basis for their anarcho-syndicalist organising. Similarly, we discover
17
the noted anarchist historian Max Nettlau stating that <I>"[o]n reading
18
Stirner, I maintain that he cannot be interpreted except in a
19
socialist sense."</i> [<b>A Short History of Anarchism</b>, p. 55] In this
20
section of the FAQ, we will indicate why, in our view, the latter,
21
syndicalistic, interpretation of egoism is far more appropriate than
24
It should be noted, before continuing, that Stirner's work has had a
25
bigger impact on individualist anarchism than social anarchism. Ben
26
Tucker, for example, considered himself an egoist after reading <b>The Ego
27
and Its Own</b>. However, social anarchists have much to gain from
28
understanding Stirner's ideas and applying what is useful in them. This
29
section will indicate why.
31
So what is Stirner all about? Simply put, he is an Egoist, which means
32
that he considers self-interest to be the root cause of an individual's
33
every action, even when he or she is apparently doing "altruistic"
34
actions. Thus: <i>"I am everything to myself and I do everything <b>on my
35
account</b>."</i> [<b>The Ego and Its Own</b>, p. 162]. Even love is an example of
36
selfishness, <i>"because love makes me happy, I love because loving is
37
natural to me, because it pleases me."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p. 291] He urges others to
38
follow him and <i>"take courage now to really make <b>yourselves</b> the central
39
point and the main thing altogether."</i> As for other people, he sees them
40
purely as a means for self-enjoyment, a self-enjoyment which is mutual:
41
<i>"For me you are nothing but my food, even as I am fed upon and turned to
42
use by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of <b>usableness,</b>
43
of utility, of use."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, pp. 296-7]
45
For Stirner, all individuals are unique (<i>"My flesh is not their flesh, my
46
mind is not their mind,"</i> <b>Ibid.</b>, p. 138) and should reject any attempts to
47
restrict or deny their uniqueness. <i>"To be looked upon as a mere <b>part,</b>
48
part of society, the individual cannot bear -- because he is <b>more</b>; his
49
uniqueness puts from it this limited conception."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p. 265]
50
Individuals, in order to maximise their uniqueness, must become aware of
51
the <b>real</b> reasons for their actions. In other words they must become
52
conscious, not unconscious, egoists. An unconscious, or involuntary,
53
egoist is one <i>"who is always looking after his own and yet does not count
54
himself as the highest being, who serves only himself and at the same time
55
always thinks he is serving a higher being, who knows nothing higher than
56
himself and yet is infatuated about something higher."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p. 36] In
57
contrast, egoists are aware that they act purely out of self-interest, and
58
if they support a "higher being," it is not because it is a noble thought
59
but because it will benefit themselves.
61
Stirner himself, however, has no truck with "higher beings." Indeed, with
62
the aim of concerning himself purely with his own interests, he attacks
63
all "higher beings," regarding them as a variety of what he calls
64
<i>"spooks,"</i> or ideas to which individuals sacrifice themselves and by which
65
they are dominated. Among the <i>"spooks"</i> Stirner attacks are such notable
66
aspects of capitalist life as private property, the division of labour,
67
the state, religion, and society itself. We will discuss Stirner's
68
critique of capitalism before moving onto his vision of an egoist society
69
(and how it relates to social anarchism).
71
For the egoist, private property is a spook which <i>"lives by the grace of
72
<b>law</b>. . . [and] becomes 'mine' only by effect of the law"</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p. 251].
73
In other words, private property exists purely <i>"through the <b>protection of
74
the State,</b> through the State's grace."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p. 114] Recognising its
75
need for state protection, Stirner is also aware that <i>"[i]t need not make
76
any difference to the 'good citizens' who protects them and their
77
principles, whether an absolute King or a constitutional one, a republic,
78
if only they are protected. And what is their principle, whose protector
79
they always 'love'?. . . interesting-bearing possession. . .labouring
80
capital. . ."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, pp. 113-114] As can be seen from capitalist support
81
for fascism this century, Stirner was correct -- as long as a regime
82
supports capitalist interests, the 'good citizens' (including many on the
83
so-called "libertarian" right) will support it.
85
Stirner sees that not only does private property require state protection,
86
it also leads to exploitation and oppression. As he points out, private
87
property's <i>"principle"</i> is <i>"labour certainly, yet little or none at all of
88
one's own, but labour of capital and of the subject labourers."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, pp.
89
113-114] In addition, Stirner attacks the division of labour resulting
90
from private property for its deadening effects on the ego and
91
individuality of the worker (see section D.10, <a href="secD10.html">"How does capitalism affect
92
technology?"</a>). However, it is the exploitation of labour which is the
93
basis of the state, for the state <i>"rests on the <b>slavery of labour.</b> If
94
<b>labour becomes free</b>, the State is lost."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p.116] Without surplus
95
value to feed off, a state could not exist.
97
For Stirner, the state is the greatest threat to his individuality: <i>"I am
98
free in <b>no</b> State."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p.195] This is because the state claims to be
99
sovereign over a given area, while, for Stirner, only the ego can be
100
sovereign over itself and that which it uses (its <i>"property"</i>): <i>"I am my
101
<b>own</b> only when I am master of myself."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p.169] Therefore Stirner
102
urges insurrection against all forms of authority and <b>dis</b>-respect for
103
property. For <i>"[i]f man reaches the point of losing respect for property,
104
everyone will have property, as all slaves become free men as soon as they
105
no longer respect the master as master"</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p. 258]. And in order for
106
labour to become free, all must have <i>"property."</i> <i>"The poor become free
107
and proprietors only when they <b>rise.</b>"</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p. 260]
109
Stirner recognises the importance of self-liberation and the way that
110
authority often exists purely through its acceptance by the governed. As
111
he argues, <i>". . . no thing is sacred of itself, but my <b>declaring it
112
sacred,</b> by my declaration, my judgement, my bending the knee; in short, by
113
my conscience."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b> p. 72] It is from this worship of what society deems
114
<i>"sacred"</i> that individuals must liberate themselves in order to discover
115
their true selves. And, significantly, part of this process of liberation
116
involves the destruction of <b>hierarchy.</b> For Stirner, <i>"Hierarchy is
117
domination of thoughts, domination of mind!,"</i> and this means that we are
118
<i>"kept down by those who are supported by thoughts"</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p. 74], i.e. by
119
our own willingness to not question authority and the sources of that
120
authority, such as private property and the state.
122
For those, like modern-day "libertarian" capitalists, who regard "profit"
123
as the key to "selfishness," Stirner has nothing but contempt. Because
124
"greed" is just one part of the ego, and to spend one's life pursuing only
125
that part is to deny all other parts. Stirner called such pursuit
126
<i>"self-sacrificing,"</i> or a <i>"one-sided, unopened, narrow egoism,"</i> which leads
127
to the ego being possessed by one aspect of itself. For <i>"he who ventures
128
everything else for <b>one thing,</b> one object, one will, one passion. . . is
129
ruled by a passion to which he brings the rest as sacrifices."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p.
130
76] For the true egoist, capitalists are <i>"self-sacrificing"</i> in this
131
sense, because they are driven only by profit. In the end, their behaviour
132
is just another form of self-denial, as the worship of money leads them to
133
slight other aspects of themselves such as empathy and critical thought
134
(the bank balance becomes the rule book). A society based on such "egoism"
135
ends up undermining the egos which inhabit it, deadening one's own and
136
other people's individuality and so reducing the vast potential "utility"
137
of others to oneself. In addition, the drive for profit is not even based
138
on self-interest, it is forced upon the individual by the workings of the
139
market (an alien authority) and results in labour <i>"claim[ing] all our time
140
and toil,"</i> leaving no time for the individual <i>"to take comfort in himself
141
as the unique."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, pp. 268-9]
143
Stirner also turns his analysis to "socialism" and "communism," and his
144
critique is as powerful as the one he directs against capitalism. This
145
attack, for some, gives his work an appearance of being pro-capitalist,
146
while, as indicated above, it is not. Stirner did attack socialism, but he
147
(rightly) attacked <b>state</b> socialism, not libertarian socialism, which did
148
not really exist at that time (the only well known anarchist work at the
149
time was Proudhon's <b>What is Property?</b>, published in 1840 and this work
150
obviously could not fully reflect the developments within anarchism that
151
were to come). He also indicated why moralistic (or altruistic)
152
socialism is doomed to failure, and laid the foundations of the theory
153
that socialism will work only on the basis of egoism (communist-egoism, as
154
it is sometimes called). Stirner correctly pointed out that much of what
155
is called socialism was nothing but warmed up liberalism, and as such
156
ignores the individual: <i>"Whom does the liberal look upon as his equal?
157
Man! . . ., In other words, he sees in you, not <b>you</b>, but the <b>species.</b>"</i>
158
[<b>Ibid.</b>, p. 123] A socialism that ignores the individual consigns itself
159
to being state capitalism, nothing more. "Socialists" of this school
160
forget that "society" is made up of individuals and that it is individuals
161
who work, think, love, play and enjoy themselves. Thus: <i>"[t]hat society is
162
no ego at all, which could give, bestow, or grant, but an instrument or
163
means, from which we may derive benefit. . . of this the socialists do not
164
think, because they -- as liberals -- are imprisoned in the religious
165
principle and zealously aspire after -- a sacred society, such as the
166
State was hitherto."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p. 123]
168
So how could Stirner's egoist vision fit with social anarchist ideas? The
169
key to understanding the connection lies in Stirner's idea of the <i>"union
170
of egoists,"</i> his proposed alternative mode of organising modern society.
171
Stirner believes that as more and more people become egoists, conflict in
172
society will decrease as each individual recognises the uniqueness of
173
others, thus ensuring a suitable environment within which they can
174
co-operate (or find <i>"truces"</i> in the <i>"war of all against all"</i>). These
175
<i>"truces"</i> Stirner termed <i><b>"Unions of Egoists."</i></b> They are the means by which
176
egoists could, firstly, <i>"annihilate"</i> the state, and secondly, destroy its
177
creature, private property, since they would <i>"multiply the individual's
178
means and secure his assailed property."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p. 258]
180
The unions Stirner desires would be based on free agreement, being
181
spontaneous and voluntary associations drawn together out of the mutual
182
interests of those involved, who would <i>"care best for their welfare if
183
they <b>unite</b> with others."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p. 309] The unions, unlike the state,
184
exist to ensure what Stirner calls <i>"intercourse,"</i> or <i>"union"</i> between
185
individuals. To better understand the nature of these associations, which
186
will replace the state, Stirner lists the relationships between friends,
187
lovers, and children at play as examples (see <b>No Gods, No Masters</b>,
188
vol. 1, p. 25). These illustrate the kinds of relationships that maximise
189
an individual's self-enjoyment, pleasure, freedom, and individuality, as
190
well as ensuring that those involved sacrifice nothing while belonging
191
to them. Such associations are based on mutuality and a free and
192
spontaneous co-operation between equals. As Stirner puts it,
193
<i>"intercourse is mutuality, it is the action, the <b>commercium,</b> of
194
individuals"</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>, p. 218], and its aim is <i>"pleasure"</i>
195
and <i>"self-enjoyment."</i>
197
In order to ensure that those involved do not sacrifice any of their
198
uniqueness and freedom, the contracting parties have to have roughly
199
the same bargaining power and the association created must be based
200
on self-management (i.e. equality of power). Otherwise, we can assume
201
that some of the egoists involved will stop being egoists and will allow
202
themselves to be dominated by another, which is unlikely. As Stirner
205
"But is an association, wherein most members allow themselves to be
206
lulled as regards their most natural and most obvious interests, actually
207
an Egoist's association? Can they really be 'Egoists' who have banded
208
together when one is a slave or a serf of the other?. . .
210
Societies wherein the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the
211
rest, where, say, some may satisfy their need for rest thanks to the fact
212
that the rest must work to the point of exhaustion, and can lead a life
213
of ease because others live in misery and perish of hunger . . . [such a
214
society or association] is more of a religious society [than a real Egoist's
215
association]"</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1, p. 24]
217
Therefore, egoism's revolt against all hierarchies that restrict the ego
218
logically leads to the end of authoritarian social relationships, particularly
219
those associated with private property and the state. Given that capitalism
220
is marked by extensive differences in bargaining power outside its
221
"associations" (i.e. firms) and power within these "associations" (i.e.
222
the worker/boss hierarchy), from an egoist point of view it is in the
223
self-interest of those subjected to such relationships to get rid of them
224
and replace them with unions based on mutuality, free association, and
227
Given the holistic and egalitarian nature of the union of egoists, it
228
can be seen that it shares little with the so-called free agreements of
229
capitalism (in particular wage labour). The hierarchical structure of
230
capitalist firms hardly produces associations in which the individual's
231
experiences can be compared to those involved in friendship or play, nor
232
do they involve equality. An essential aspect of the <i>"union of egoists"</i>
233
for Stirner was such groups should be "owned" by their members, not the
234
members by the group. That points to a <b>libertarian</b> form of organisation
235
within these "unions" (i.e. one based on equality and participation), <b>not</b>
236
a hierarchical one. If you have no say in how a group functions (as in wage
237
slavery, where workers have the "option" of "love it or leave it") then you
238
can hardly be said to own it, can you? Indeed, Stirner argues, <i>"[a]s a unique
239
individual you assert yourself alone in association, because the association
240
does not own you, because you are the one who owns it"</i> and <i>"I have no
241
wish to become a slave to my maxims, but would rather subject them to my
242
ongoing criticism."</i> [<b>Op.Cit.</b>, p. 17] Thus, Stirner's <i>"union of egoists"</i>
243
cannot be compared to the employer-employee contract as the employees cannot be
244
said to "own" the organisation resulting from the contract (nor do they own
245
themselves during work time, having sold their time/liberty to the boss in
246
return for wages -- see <a href="secB4.html">section B.4</a>). Only within a participatory association
247
can <i>"assert"</i> yourself freely and subject your maxims, and association, to your
248
<i>"ongoing criticism"</i> -- in capitalist contracts you can do both only with your
251
And by the same token, capitalist contracts do not involve "leaving each other
252
alone" (a la "anarcho"-capitalism). No boss will "leave alone" the workers in
253
his factory, nor will a landowner "leave alone" a squatter on land he owns
254
but does not use. Stirner rejects the narrow concept of "property" as
255
private property and recognises the <b>social</b> nature of "property," whose
256
use often affects far more people than those who claim to "own" it: <i>"I do
257
not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as <b>my</b>
258
property, in which I 'respect' nothing. Pray do the like with what you
259
call my property!"</i> [<b>The Ego and Its Own</b>, p. 248]. This view logically
260
leads to the idea of both workers' self-management and grassroots
261
community control (as will be discussed more fully in <a href="secIcon.html">section I</a>) as
262
those affected by an activity will take a direct interest in it and not let
263
"respect" for "private" property allow them to be oppressed by others.
265
Moreover, egoism (self-interest) must lead to self-management and mutual
266
aid (solidarity), for by coming to agreements based on mutual respect and
267
social equality, we ensure non-hierarchical relationships. If I dominate
268
someone, then in all likelihood I will be dominated in turn. By removing
269
hierarchy and domination, the ego is free to experience and utilise the
270
full potential of others. As Kropotkin argued in <b>Mutual Aid</b>,
271
individual freedom and social co-operation are not only compatible but,
272
when united, create the most productive conditions for all individuals
275
Therefore Stirner's union of egoists has strong connections with social
276
anarchism's desire for a society based on freely federated individuals,
277
co-operating as equals. His central idea of "property" -- that which is
278
used by the ego -- is an important concept for social anarchism, because
279
it stresses that hierarchy develops when we let ideas and organisations
280
own us rather than vice versa. A participatory anarchist community will be
281
made up of individuals who must ensure that it remains their "property"
282
and be under their control; hence the importance of decentralised,
283
confederal organisations which ensure that control. A free society must be
284
organised in such a way to ensure the free and full development of
285
individuality and maximise the pleasure to be gained from individual
286
interaction and activity. Lastly, Stirner indicates that mutual aid and
287
equality are based not upon an abstract morality but upon self-interest,
288
both for defence against hierarchy and for the pleasure of co-operative
289
intercourse between unique individuals.
291
Stirner demonstrates brilliantly how abstractions and fixed ideas
292
(<i>"spooks"</i>) influence the very way we think, see ourselves, and act. He
293
shows how hierarchy has its roots within our own minds, in how we view the
294
world. He offers a powerful defence of individuality in an authoritarian
295
and alienated world, and places subjectivity at the centre of any
296
revolutionary project, where it belongs. Finally, he reminds us that a
297
free society must exist in the interests of all, and must be based upon
298
the self-fulfilment, liberation and enjoyment of the individual.
added
removed
secG6.html
