Editing Max Stirner (section)

== Philosophy ==
{{see also|Egoism|Egoist anarchism}}
Stirner, whose main philosophical work was ''The Unique and Its Property'', is credited as a major influence in the development of [[nihilism]], [[existentialism]] and [[post-modernism]] as well as [[individualist anarchism]], [[post-anarchism]] and [[post-left anarchy]].<ref name="SEP-Stirner"/><ref name="Goodway, David 2006, p. 99"/> He also influenced [[Illegalism|illegalists]], [[Feminism|feminists]], [[Nihilism|nihilists]] and [[Bohemianism|bohemians]], as well as [[Fascism|fascists]], [[Right-libertarianism|right-libertarians]] and [[Anarcho-capitalism|anarcho-capitalists]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Blumenfeld |first=Jacob |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=52-1tQEACAAJ |title=All Things Are Nothing To Me: The Unique Philosophy of Max Stirner |date=2018 |publisher=Zero Books |isbn=978-1-78099-663-9 |location=Winchester, UK |pages=1, 8 |oclc=1029858436}}</ref> Stirner was opposed to [[communism]] for the same reasons he opposed [[christianity]], [[capitalism]], [[humanism]], [[liberalism]], [[property rights]] and [[nationalism]], seeing them as forms of unacceptable authority over the individual. Stirner also influenced [[anarcho-communists]] and [[post-left anarchists]]. The writers of ''An Anarchist FAQ'' report that "many in the anarchist movement in Glasgow, Scotland, took Stirner's '[[Union of egoists]]' literally as the basis for their [[anarcho-syndicalist]] organising in the 1940s and beyond." Similarly, the noted anarchist historian [[Max Nettlau]] states that "[o]n reading Stirner, I maintain that he cannot be interpreted except in a socialist sense." Stirner was [[anti-capitalist]] and [[pro-labour]], attacking "the division of labour resulting from private property for its deadening effects on the ego and individuality of the worker" and writing that free competition "is not 'free,' because I lack the things for competition. [...] Under the regime of the commonality the labourers always fall into the hands of the possessors of the capitalists [...]. The labourer cannot realise on his labour to the extent of the value that it has for the customer. [...] The state rests on the slavery of labour. If labour becomes free, the state is lost."<ref name="McKay 2012">{{cite book |title=An Anarchist FAQ |publisher=AK Press |year=2012 |isbn=978-1849351225 |editor-last=McKay |editor-first=Iain |volume=II |location=Stirling |pages=1561–1573 |chapter=What are the ideas of Max Stirner?}}</ref> For Stirner, "Labor has an egoistic character; the laborer is the egoist."<ref name="Paul 1975">Thomas, Paul (May 1975). "Karl Marx and Max Stirner". ''Political Theory''. Sage Publications. '''3''' (2): 159–179. {{JSTOR|190930}}.</ref>

=== Egoism ===
{{individualism sidebar}}
Stirner's [[Egoist anarchism|egoism]] argues that individuals are impossible to fully comprehend, as no understanding of [[the self]] can adequately describe the fullness of experience. Stirner has been broadly understood as containing traits of both [[psychological egoism]] and [[rational egoism]]. Unlike the self-interest described by [[Ayn Rand]], Stirner did not address individual self-interest, selfishness, or prescriptions for how one should act. He urged individuals to decide for themselves and fulfill their own egoism.<ref name="McKay 2012"/>

He believed that everyone was propelled by their own egoism and desires and that those who accepted this—as willing egoists—could freely live their individual desires, while those who did not—as unwilling egoists—will falsely believe they are fulfilling another cause while they are secretly fulfilling their own desires for happiness and security. The willing egoist would see that they could act freely, unbound from obedience to sacred but artificial truths like law, rights, morality, and religion. Power is the method of Stirner's egoism and the only justified method of gaining [[Property (philosophy)|philosophical property]]. Stirner did not believe in the one-track pursuit of greed, which as only one aspect of the ego would lead to being possessed by a cause other than the full ego. He did not believe in [[natural rights]] to property and encouraged insurrection against all forms of authority, including disrespect for property.<ref name="McKay 2012"/>

=== Anarchism ===
[[File:Benjamin R Tucker.jpg|thumb|180px|[[Benjamin Tucker]], pioneer of [[individualist anarchism]]]] Stirner proposes that most commonly accepted social institutions—including the notion of [[State (polity)|state]], [[Property#Property in philosophy|property as a right]], [[natural rights]] in general and the very notion of [[society]]—were mere illusions, "spooks" or ghosts in the mind.<ref>Heider, Ulrike. ''Anarchism: Left, Right and Green'', San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1994, pp. 95–96.</ref> He advocated egoism and a form of [[Amorality|amoralism]] in which individuals would unite in Unions of egoists only when it was in their self-interest to do so. For him, property simply comes about through might, saying: "Whoever knows how to take and 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." He adds that "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!"<ref name="Stirner, Max p. 248">Stirner, Max. ''The Ego and Its Own'', p. 248.</ref> Stirner considers the world and everything in it, including other persons, available to one's taking or use without moral constraint and that rights do not exist in regard to objects and people at all. He sees no rationality in taking the interests of others into account unless doing so furthers one's self-interest, which he believes is the only legitimate reason for acting. He denies society as being an actual entity, calling society a "spook" and that "the individuals are its reality."<ref name="Moggach, Douglas p. 194">Moggach, Douglas. ''The New Hegelians''. Cambridge University Press, 2006 p. 194.</ref>

Despite being labeled as anarchist, Stirner was not necessarily one. Separation of Stirner and egoism from anarchism was first done in 1914 by [[Dora Marsden]] in her debate with [[Benjamin Tucker]] in her journals ''The New Freewoman'' and ''The Egoist''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sidparker.com/essays/dora-marsden-benjamin-r-tucker/|title=Dora Marsden & Benjamin R. Tucker – Sidney E. Parker Archives|access-date=28 November 2019|archive-date=28 November 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191128180445/http://www.sidparker.com/essays/dora-marsden-benjamin-r-tucker/|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Communism ====
Stirner suggested that communism was tainted with the same idealism as [[Christianity]] and infused with superstitious ideas like morality and justice.<ref>Newman, S. (2013). ''[https://research.gold.ac.uk/17024/1/Stirner%20Political%20Theology.pdf Stirner's Radical Atheism and the Critique of Political Theology]''. p. 10, [[Goldsmiths, University of London|Goldsmiths: University of London]]</ref> Stirner's principal critique of socialism and communism was that they ignored the individual; they aimed to hand ownership over to the abstraction society, which meant that no existing person actually owned anything.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Thomas |first=Matty |date=10 January 2017 |title=The Relevance of Max Stirner to Anarcho-Communists |url=https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/matty-thomas-the-relevance-of-max-stirner-to-anarcho-communists |access-date= |website=The Anarchist Library |language=en}}</ref>

The Anarchist FAQ writes that "[w]hile some may object to our attempt to place egoism and communism together, it is worth pointing out that Stirner rejected 'communism'. Stirner did not subscribe to libertarian communism, because it did not exist when he was writing and so he was directing his critique against the various forms of state communism which did. Moreover, this does not mean that anarcho-communists and others may not find his work of use to them. And Stirner would have approved, for nothing could be more foreign to his ideas than to limit what an individual considers to be in their best interest."<ref name="McKay 2012"/> In summarizing Stirner's main arguments, the writers "indicate why social anarchists have been, and should be, interested in his ideas, saying that, John P. Clark presents a sympathetic and useful social anarchist critique of his work in ''Max Stirner's Egoism''."<ref name="McKay 2012"/>

[[Daniel Guérin]] wrote that "Stirner accepted many of the premises of communism but with the following qualification: the profession of communist faith is a first step toward total emancipation of the victims of our society, but they will become completely 'disalienated,' and truly able to develop their individuality, only by advancing beyond communism."<ref>Guérin, Daniel (1970). ''Anarchism: From Theory to Practice''. Monthly Review Press. pp. 70–71. {{ISBN|978-0853451280}}.</ref>

==== Revolution ====
Stirner criticizes conventional notions of [[revolution]], arguing that [[social movement]]s aimed at overturning established ideals are tacitly idealist because they are implicitly aimed at the establishment of a new ideal thereafter. "Revolution and insurrection must not be looked upon as synonymous. The former consists in an overturning of conditions, of the established condition or status, the State or society, and is accordingly a political or social act; the latter has indeed for its unavoidable consequence a transformation of circumstances, yet does not start from it but from men's discontent with themselves, is not an armed rising, but a rising of individuals, a getting up, without regard to the arrangements that spring from it. 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, since, if it prospers, the established collapses of itself; it is only a working forth of me out of the established. If I leave the established, it is dead and passes into decay."

==== Union of egoists ====
{{main|Union of egoists}}
Stirner's idea of the Union of egoists was first expounded in ''The Unique and Its Property''. The Union is understood as a non-systematic association, which Stirner proposed in contradistinction to the [[Sovereign state|state]].<ref name=karl>{{cite book|last=Thomas|first=Paul|author-link=Paul Thomas (Marx scholar) |title=[[Karl Marx and the Anarchists]] |publisher=[[Routledge]]/[[Kegan Paul]]|location=London|year=1985|isbn=0-7102-0685-2|page=142}}</ref> Unlike a "community" in which individuals are obliged to participate, Stirner's suggested Union would be voluntary and instrumental under which individuals would freely associate insofar as others within the Union remain useful to each constituent individual.<ref name=Cohn>{{Cite journal |last1=Cohn |first1=Jesse |title=What is Postanarchism 'Post'? |journal=[[Postmodern Culture]] |volume=13 |issue=1 |date=September 2002 |url=http://pmc.iath.virginia.edu/issue.902/13.1cohn.html |language=en |doi=10.1353/pmc.2002.0028 |s2cid=145475500 |issn=1053-1920 |via=[[Project MUSE]] |access-date=2 December 2018 |archive-date=25 September 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160925231231/http://pmc.iath.virginia.edu/issue.902/13.1cohn.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The Union relation between egoists is continually renewed by all parties' support through an act of will.<ref name="nonserviam">{{cite journal|url=http://i-studies.com/journal/n/pdf/nsi-17.pdf#page=13|title=The union of egoists|journal=Non Serviam|volume=1|first=Svein Olav|last=Nyberg|pages=13–14|location=Oslo, Norway|oclc=47758413|access-date=1 September 2012|publisher=Svein Olav Nyberg|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101207042220/http://i-studies.com/journal/n/pdf/nsi-17.pdf|archive-date=7 December 2010}}</ref> Some such as Svein Olav Nyberg argue that the Union requires that all parties participate out of a [[Selfishness|conscious egoism]] while others such as [[Sidney Parker (anarchist)|Sydney E. Parker]] regard the union as a "change of attitude," rejecting its previous conception as an institution.<ref>{{cite web|title=Non Serviam, No. 18, page 6, "Union of Egoists – Comment" by S.E. Parker.|url=http://consciousegoism.6te.net/pdfs/nonserviam/18.pdf|access-date=8 May 2020|archive-date=20 April 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200420153648/http://consciousegoism.6te.net/pdfs/nonserviam/18.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Response to Hegelianism ===
[[File:Stirner02.jpg|thumb|150px|Caricature of Max Stirner taken from a sketch by [[Friedrich Engels]] (1820–1895) of the meetings of ''[[Die Freien]]'']]
Scholar [[Lawrence Stepelevich]] states that G. W. F. Hegel was a major influence on ''The Unique and Its Property''. While the latter has an "un-Hegelian structure and tone" on the whole and is hostile to Hegel's conclusions about the self and the world, Stepelevich states that Stirner's work is best understood as answering Hegel's question of the role of consciousness after it has contemplated "untrue knowledge" and become "absolute knowledge." Stepelevich concludes that Stirner presents the consequences of the rediscovering one's self-consciousness after realizing self-determination.{{sfn|Stepelevich|1985}}

Scholars such as [[Douglas Moggach]] and Widukind De Ridder have stated that Stirner was obviously a student of Hegel, like his contemporaries [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and Bruno Bauer, but this does not necessarily make him an Hegelian. Contrary to the Young Hegelians, Stirner scorned all attempts at an immanent critique of Hegel and the Enlightenment and renounced Bauer and Feuerbach's emancipatory claims as well. Contrary to Hegel, who considered the given as an inadequate embodiment of rational, Stirner leaves the given intact by considering it a mere object, not of transformation, but of enjoyment and consumption ("His Own").<ref name="Moggach, Douglas & De Ridder, Widukind pp. 82–83">Moggach, Douglas and De Ridder, Widukind. "Hegelianism in Restoration Prussia, 1841–1848: Freedom, Humanism and 'Anti-Humanism' in Young Hegelian Thought". In: ''Hegel's Thought in Europe: Currents, Crosscurrents and Undercurrents'', ed. Lisa Herzog (pp. 71–92). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, pp. 82–83.</ref>

According to Moggach, Stirner does not go beyond Hegel, but he in fact leaves the domain of philosophy in its entirety, stating:
{{blockquote|Stirner refused to conceptualize the human self, and rendered it devoid of any reference to rationality or universal standards. The self was moreover considered a field of action, a "never-being I." The "I" had no essence to realize and life itself was a process of self-dissolution. Far from accepting, like the humanist Hegelians, a construal of subjectivity endowed with a universal and ethical mission, Stirner's notion of "the Unique" (''Der Einzige'') distances itself from any conceptualization whatsoever: "There is no development of the concept of the Unique. No philosophical system can be built out of it, as it can out of Being, or Thinking, or the I. Rather, with it, all development of the concept ceases. The person who views it as a principle thinks that he can treat it philosophically or theoretically and necessarily wastes his breath arguing against it."<ref>"Hegelianism in Restoration Prussia, 1841–1848: Freedom, Humanism and 'Anti-Humanism' in Young Hegelian Thought.", In: ''Hegel's Thought in Europe: Currents, Crosscurrents and Undercurrents'', ed. Lisa Herzog (pp. 71–92). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, p. 75.</ref>}}