Talk:Max Stirner

A reading of The Ego and His Own reveals a treatment of topics overlooked in accounts of it by anarchists influenced by Stirner. I recall passages describing the purported development of the human race in which I seem to remember phases associated with races described in such terms as "Mongol" and "Negro". Rudolf Steiner, whom, Stirner influenced, describes human spiritual development in similar terms. For completeness, the article should include Stirner's racism, which his admirers choose to ignore. 12:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I would take a look at this section of Apio Ludd's introduction to the The Ego and His Own, which addresses the passages you're talking about directly. Ludd says

The apparent racial hierarchy found in the perspective Stirner was mocking comes straight out of Hegel (though Hegel, like most of the progressive thinkers of the time, did not understand race biologically and assumed all humanity could eventually achieve the progressive transformation in which he believed), and Stirner’s mockery is a delightfully politically incorrect joke on the cultural hierarchy Hegel assumed. Stirner’s playful argument is that, even if you assume that there is a history that progresses, by Hegel’s own logic, you have to end up back at egoism. All that progress won’t bring us anywhere else... And his attribution of “Mongolism” to his German contemporaries shows that even one of his tactics for avoiding the censors (using “China” or “Japan” instead of “Germany” whenever he was making a critical reference to the German authorities of his time) was part of the joke.

Now, I haven't read Stirner myself, and it's not immediately obvious that Ludd's interpretation is more (or less) trustworthy than your own. But it does seem like multiple people can read the same passages in The Ego and come to different conclusions about whether Stirner was a racist (Ludd would argue Stirner is mocking the racist views you're attributing to him), so reliable secondary sources seem necessary for the inclusion of your interpretation in the article. Alecnotalex (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

A better question, imo, would be how notable is Stirner's racism if it exists. If it's something that hasn't even had lipservice payed to it by secondary sources then is it notable enough to bring up even in the context of a summary? Even then, I think it would be better to discuss that in its own article.AssanEcho (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

> "A better question, imo, would be how notable is Stirner's racism if it exists."

This is a question which (to my knowledge) the English speaking world is incapable of currently answering. Stirner's reference to the Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasian comes out as a mirror of his earlier model of the Child->Youth->Adult and Ancients->Moderns->Free.

Ludd (and many other Stirnerians) call this satirical because the model for Child->-Youth->Adult/Ancients->Moderns->Free is also satirical. The first stage of the process is occupation with things, the second stage is occupation with ideas, and the third stage is egoism. These models overlap in a way which render them all invalid.

Stirner's model for *human development* (C-Y-A) is a joking parody of Hegel's model for human development. His model ends with this joking remark: "Finally, the old man? When I become one, there'll be time enough to talk about that." A central part of Stirner's book is finding that ideas develop only within me, he's making fun of Hegel creating a universal model for human development. My model is just as accurate as yours!

Stirner's model for historical development (Ancients->Moderns->Free) contains within it the same stages and even similar language. Same goes for his ethnographic history (Negroid->Mongoloid->Caucasian). I see a lot of playful language in all these chapters suggesting their lack of seriousness. It's very obvious his history isn't a serious one, neither is his development for "A Human Life" (as opposed to The Human life), or for his ethnographic history/taxonomy/hierarchy. Given how his core idea comes out to a self-owning World of Perception where everything exists through me (only what I can make of it, everything is my 'own' since I experience it, I am the center of my world), there's no room for any Sacred or universal models. Finally, there's The Philosophical Reactionaries (of dubious penmanship) which states explicitly that he is using the tools of Hegelian philosophy to undermine it.

It would be incorrect to finish here. Stirner makes reference to the ideas he develops within these chapters for the rest of the book. His history is certainly joking—and he makes references to everyone being a history unto themselves alongside being a world unto themselves—but how seriously he treats this history requires further investigation.

I believe this question can only be answered when we have more literature regarding Stirner's final published work (A History of Reaction, Vol. 1 and Vol. 2). If we want a conclusive answer on how Stirner treats his history, we have to read his actual history book.

One small problem. There's not a confirmed living person in the world who read it. The only literature on it (reviews from the time & Stepelevich's mention) are mostly dedicated to how inaccessible and low quality it is. We probably won't be able to engage with Stirner's racism for our entire lifetimes.

As for how racism effects his philosophy, there's nothing here. Stirner's philosophy amounts to a queer rejection of any attribute determining me or you. He comes out against being a "correct human being", a "correct female", in 'Stirner's Critics' he writes "off the entire masculine position" (I am more than a male! I am a unique male!). One more quote should suffice here:

"I ask the opposite: How can you be truly unique so long as one connection still exists between you? If you are connected, then you can't leave each other; if a "tie" encompasses you, then you are only something with another, and twelve of you make a dozen, thousands of you a people, millions of you humanity. "Only when you are human can you treat each other as human beings, just as you can understand each other as patriots only when you are patriotic." Well then, I reply: only when you are unique can you have intercourse with each other as what you are."

My last comment is that any attempt to pin Stirner as demonstrating racist beliefs (even if they may not impact his philosophy) with his remarks on the 'half-blooded Jew' should remember that Stirner actively comes out against Sacred blood ties, very obviously does not believe blood determines consciousness, and that part is explicitly referencing how the Jew (who has only the "spirit of this world") does not believe in what he is saying (here he is explaining the Christian view of the "worldless" Spirit). Fellow-feeling (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

One mistake here. Literature on Stirner is still developing. In my opinion, any conversation of Stirner's racism needs to be read after a History of Reaction. Though it's my interpretation that his philosophy is firmly anti-racist (in the same sense it is anti-humanist, against determination by any attribute) he inherits Hegel's ideas and models as his foundation (even if he satirizes them extensively). Fellow-feeling (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The sketch/caricature of Stirner, drawn by Engels, appears three separate times in this article. I am not certain the article requires there be three separate instances of Engels' sketch; it seems rather excessive. frank (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it should be cut down but only by one image. I think the sketch without the annotation should be removed, no point in having both and likely anybody researching him in any way whatsoever will come across the sketch themselves. AssanEcho (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)