|
| From the archives of The Memory Hole |
Philosophical Egoism: German Antecedents
The following comprises Chapter II of Andrew Carlson's, Anarchism In Germany: The Early Movement.
Max Stirner (1806-1856)
by Andrew Carlson
Max Stirner, nom de plume for Johann Caspar Schmidt, came into
this world at six o'clock on the morning of October 25, 1806. He
was born in a house at number 31, Maximiliansstrasse (Marketplatz)
which was the principal street of the city of Bayreuth. 1
He was less than half a year old when his father, a maker of wind
instruments, died of tuberculosis on April 19, 1807, at the age
of 37. His mother, two years later, married Heinrich Ballerstedt,
a 57-year-old pharmacist from Helmstedt, and they all
moved to Kulm on the Vistula. Johann returned to his native town of
Bayreuth in 1818 for his education, living with his godfather,
and uncle, Johann Caspar Martin Sticht after whom he was named.
He remained there for the next eight years, completing his studies
in the gymnasium where he distinguished himself by always
placing in the upper percentile of his class. 2
In 1826 he left Bayreuth to study at the University of Berlin
where he remained for the next two years. In Berlin he met a
fellow student, Ludwig Feuerbach, who was destined to be one of
his future rivals. At the University of Berlin Stirner studied
logic under Heinrich Ritter, geography under Carl Ritter,
"Pindar und Metrik" under Bockh, and the philosophy of religion
under Hegel.
Leaving Berlin on September 1, 1828, he went to Erlangen where he
matriculated in the university on October 20th, but only enrolled
in two courses; one given by the theologian Georg Benedict Wiener
on the Book of Corinthians, the other in logic and metaphysics by
Christian Kopp, the philosopher. Stirner then "dropped out" of
school for three and a half years wandering around Germany. During
this period Stirner at one time matriculated at the University
of Königsberg but did not attend a single lecture because he was
called to Kulm to care for his mother who had lapsed
into insanity.
In October of 1832 Stirner returned to Berlin to complete his
studies. On June 2, 1834, he asked permission to appear before
the Royal Examination Commission for the Examination
pro faculate docendi in the five areas in which he had prepared
himself: ancient languages, German language, history, philosophy,
and religion. The examiners found that he had two deficiencies.
He was lacking in a precise knowledge of the Bible, and did not
possess the basic qualities of logic necessary in history, philosophy
and philology. Because of this he was granted only a
limited facultas docendi which qualified him to teach in the
Prussian gymnasia. It should be brought out, in all fairness to
Stirner, that his examinations were delayed by the visit of his
insane mother to Berlin. Whether or not this visit had an affect
on the outcome of his examinations is doubtful because a person
of the type of unorthodox character which Stirner exemplifies in his writing,
would probably be found lacking in exactly the
qualities which the examination board found him deficient.
During 1834-35 Stirner served as an unpaid training teacher in
the Berlin Königliche Realschule. Following this internship he
tried unsuccessfully until 1837 to obtain a salaried teaching
position from the Prussian government. Lack of employment did
not stop him from marrying his landlady's daughter, Agnes Clara
Kunigunde Burtz, on December 12, 1837. This marriage ended the
following year when his 22-year-old wife died in childbirth on
August 29th along with the child.
Once again it was Stirner's lot to be called upon to take care of
his insane mother, a task which occupied his time until 1839,
when he found a teaching position in Berlin at Madame Gropius'
school for girls. He remained there performing his duties satisfactorily
until 1844. 3
During the five-year period he taught at Madame Gropius' school
Stirner frequented Hippel's Weinstube at 94 Friedrichstrasse
where the Young Hegelians gathered to refute the teachings of
their master. They referred to themselves as Die Freien -the
Free Ones. The leaders of Die Freien were the brothers Bauer,
Bruno and Edgar. Marx, Engels and the poets Herwegh and Hoffmann
von Fallersleben were occasional visitors. Ludwig Feuerbach,
Wilhelm Jordon, C. F. Köppen, Dr. Arthur Müller, Moses Hess,
Ludwig Bühl, Adolf Rutenberg, Eduard Meyen, and Julius Faucher also
frequented Hippel's. Arnold Ruge, self-appointed high priest of
these Hegelians, carried on nightly'. debates which were often
very bitter. 4 A sketch by Engels 5 of one of these nightly disputations
has survived. On the sidelines of the debate sits a
lonely figure. highbrowed, bespectacled, smoking a cigarette,
this is Stirner. Woodcock, on the basis of
this sketch, concludes that Stirner played the role of the silent,
detached listener in Die Freien, on good terms with all and
a friend of none. 6 It is doubtful if Woodcock's conclusion would
hold true. Engels at the same time also commemorated Stirner in
poetry, writing:
Look at Stirner, look at him, the peaceful enemy of
all constraint.
For the moment, he is still drinking beer, soon he
will be drinking blood as though it were water.
When others cry savagely "down with the kings"
Stirner immediately supplements "down with the
laws also."
Stirner full of dignity proclaims; you bend your will
power and you dare to call yourselves free.
You become accustomed to slavery
Down with dogmatism, down with law. 7
At Hippel's Weinstube Stirner met his second wife, Marie Dähnhardt;
a pretty, brilliant and emancipated free spirit, whom he
married in 1843. The wedding ceremony, if you want to call it
one, took place October 21 in Stirner's apartment. The pastor, a
Reverend Marot, arrived to find the bridegroom and the witnesses,
Bruno Bauer and Ludwig Bühl, in their shirtsleeves, playing
cards. The bride arrived late, dressed in her everyday street
clothes. A Bible was not available so the neighborhood had to be
scoured to locate one. Since no one had remembered to buy wedding
rings, the ceremony was completed with the copper rings from
Bruno Bauer's purse. Stirner continued to teach at Madame Gropius,
until October 18, 1844, although he could have quit after his
marriage because his wife, when she arrived in Berlin from Gadebusch,
was an heiress to some 20-30,000 thalers. Marie was a
petite, graceful blonde with heavy hair which surrounded her head
in ringlets according to the fashion of the time. She was a striking
beauty and became a favorite at meetings of Die Freien She
smoked cigars and sometimes donned male attire in order to accompany
her husband and his friends on their nightly excursions.
It is not known if Stirner was forced to leave his position at
Madame Gropius, school or if he left voluntarily, thinking that
his forthcoming book, Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844),
would win him literary fame and fortune. His book won for him
abuse from his contemporaries whom he had attacked, but very
little fortune. In 1845 Stirner went into the dairy
business, using the remainder of his wife's inheritance as capital.
This enterprise failed quickly because of a lack of business
experience. Stirner had seen to it that he had a large
supply of milk coming in from the dairy farmers, but he had
failed to solicit a list of customers to buy it. Stirner's milk
business was a never-ending source of amusement among his circle
of friends, but it embittered Marie against him for squandering
her inheritance.
In 1847 his wife, in disgust and anger, left him and went to
London. When Mackay attempted to interview her in 1897 she
replied tartly that she was not willing to revive her past but
added that her husband had been too much of an egoist to keep
friends and that he was "very sly." Marx, in a letter of July 13,
1852, related to Engels that "Madame Schmidt-Stirner" had left
for Australia in search of gold. 8 In Australia she married a
laborer and took in washing to earn a living. Eventually
she went back to London where she used the name May Smith
and became a devout Roman Catholic refusing to discuss her
earlier life, even with Mackay.
Deserted by his wife, Stirner gradually sank into poverty and
obscurity, living in a series of poor lodgings, earning some kind
of miserable living, often in debt. During the years 1845-1847
Stirner had worked on a series of translations of J. B Say and Adam
Smith which proved to be an arduous but unremunerative
endeavor. He spent much of his time evading his numerous creditors
but was twice imprisoned for debt, from March 5 to 26, 1853,
and January 1 to February 4, 1854, and often went hungry. Stirner
could bear hunger for he was a man of moderation in his eating and
drinking habits and had always lived frugally. In 1852 he published
his Geschichte der Reaction in Berlin. It was not greatly
successful and earned him little money. It was too pedestrian in
style to arouse much interest.
The end came for Stirner on June 25, 1856, at the age
of 49 years and eight months, dying from the bite of a "poisonous
fly.'' A number of his former friends hearing of his impoverished
condition collected enough money to purchase a second class grave
for him. It cost one thaler and ten groats, equivalent to one
American dollar at the time. Among those present at his burial
were Bruno Bauer and Ludwig Bühl, who had been the witnesses at
his marriage to Marie Dähnhardt.
Early Writings.
Many people are not aware that Stirner wrote a large number of
articles before he wrote Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum. They
view Stirner's book as a bolt out of the blue. Nothing could be
further from the truth. 9It is possible, by reading through these
early articles, to trace the development of Stirner's thought to
the point where it is expressed in Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum. 10
It is not possible in this study to include a detailed
examination of everything Stirner wrote prior to the appearance of
his book. 11 In his early writings Stirner examined Hegelian
principles and rejected them. His ideas on religion, education,
and the political and social structure of society are to be seen
in their incipient stage. Stirner's book, when viewed from the
perspective of his earlier writings, is the logical outcome of a
carefully thought out course he was following, and not the
instantaneous aberration of a brilliant, misguided, erratic mind as
is often inferred. Stirner examines, very carefully, both acceptable
contemporary solutions and contemporary proposals on the
problems in which he is interested before rejecting their solution
as unsatisfactory. This is what is accomplished in his
early writings. Once having discovered what he thinks to be the
faults of society he set out in Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum to
outline what he thinks is acceptable solution. The format for
Stirner's assault on religion, the state and society is present
in the early writings. Stirner arrived at the conclusion that
everything should be determined by one guiding principle: egoism.
Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum.
The Ego and His Own, as the English translation of Stirner's book is
called, was not an immediate success when it was published in
1844. 12 It was re-issued around the turn of the century when the
philosophy of Nietzsche was popular. Today Stirner's book is
once again enjoying some popularity among the
student anarchists. 13 Der Einzige has been analyzed many
times. 14 What does this book contain that keeps it alive today
nearly a century and a quarter after it was first published?
Why do students who feel a "generation gap" between themselves
and their parents feel an affinity for Stirner's book? Why does
James Huneker call it "the most revolutionary book ever written?"
Stirner starts his book with a short introduction. He uses the
first line from Goethe's poem Vanitas! Vanitatum Vanitas! as
the title for this introduction. It reads: "Ich hab, mein Sach'
auf Nichts gestellt," translated literally as "I have set my
affair on nothing" or, translated more freely, "all things are
nothing to me." This introduction at once lets the reader know
what the subject of the book is-self.
According to Stirner the supreme law for each individual is his
own welfare. Everyone should seek out the enjoyment of life. A
person should learn how to enjoy and expand life. Everything a
person does shall be directed toward self-satisfaction. Nothing
should be done for the sake of God or for the sake of anyone
else. The earth is for man to make use of. Everyone and everything
mean nothing to Stirner. Things and people are to be used
and then when they are no longer of any utility they are to be cast
aside. Stirner loves mankind, not merely individuals, but
mankind as a whole. But he loves them because of his own egoism,
because it makes him feel happy to love. It pleases him. Stirner
is not concerned with Christian or human values and morals.
If what Stirner wants to do gives him pleasure, then it is justified.
Everyone is using everyone else. The only true relationship
people have with each other is useableness. Everyone you
meet is food to feed upon.
Stirner rejects law. Laws exist not because men recognize them
as being favorable to their interests, but because men hold them
to be sacred. When you start to speak of rights you are introducing
a religious concept. Since the law is sacred, anyone who
breaks it is a criminal. Therefore there are no criminals except
against something sacred. If you do away with the sacrosancity
of the law then crime will disappear, because in reality a crime
is nothing more than an act desecrating that which was hallowed
by the state. There are, according to Stirner, no rights,
because might makes right. A man is entitled to everything he
has the power to possess and hold. The earth belongs to him who
knows how to take it. Self -welfare should be the guiding principle
to follow rather than law. Stirner relates that you can
get further with a handful of might than you can with a bagful of
right. The way to gain freedom is through might because he who
has might stands above the law. A person only becomes completely
free when what he holds, he holds because of his might. Then he
is a self -owner and not a mere freeman. Everyone should say to
himself; I am all to myself and I do all for my sake. I am unique, nothing
is more important to me than myself. Stirner does not believe that a person is good
or bad, nor does he believe in what is true, good, right, and so
on. These are vague concepts which have no meaning outside a God-
centered or man-centered world. A man should center his interest
on self and concentrate on his own business.
Stirner rejects the state. Without law the state is not possible.
The respect for the law is what holds the state together.
The state, like the law, exists not because an individual recognizes
it as favorable to his welfare but because lie considers it
to be sacred. To Stirner the state, like the law, is not sacred.
Stirner is the mortal enemy of the state. The welfare of the
state has nothing to do with his own welfare and he should therefore
sacrifice nothing to it. The general welfare is not his welfare
but only means self-denial on his part. The object of
the state is to limit the individual, to tame him, to subordinate
him, to subject him to something general for the purpose of the
state. The state hinders an individual from attaining his true
value, while at the same time it exploits the individual to get
some benefit out of him.
The state stands in the way between men, tearing them apart.
Stirner would transform the state into his own property and his
own creature instead of being the property and creature of the
state. He would annihilate it and form in its place a Union of
Egoists. The state must be destroyed because it is the negation
of the individual will, it approaches men as a collective unit,
The struggle between the egoists and the state is inevitable.
Once the state is annihilated the Union of Egoists will prevail.
This union is not sacred nor a spiritual power above man's power.
It is created by men. In this union men will be held together by
mutual advantage, through common "use" of one another. In joining
the union an individual increases his own individual power.
Each person will now through his own might control what he can.
It does not imply though that there will be a region of universal
rapacity and perpetual slaughter, nor does it mean the
wielding of power over others. Each man will defend his own
uniqueness. Once he has attained self-realization of true egoism
he does not want to rule over others or hold more possessions
than he needs because this would destroy his independence.
Stirner's Union of Egoists is not communistic. It is a union
that individuals enter into for mutual gain from the egoistic
union which will be developed within the union. There will be
neither masters nor servants, only egoists. Everyone will withdraw
into his own uniqueness which will prevent conflict because
no one will be trying to prove himself "in the right" before a
third party. Egoism will foster genuine and spontaneous union
between individuals.
Stirner does not develop in any detail the form of social organization
that the Union of Egoists might follow. Organization
itself is anathema to Stirner's Union. Within the Union the
individual will be able to develop himself. The Union exists for
the individual. The Union of Egoists is not to be confused
with society which Stirner opposes. Society lays claim to a
person which is considered to be sacred, but which consumes an
individual. The Union is made up of individuals who consume the
Union for their own good.
How is the abrogation of law, state, and property to be realized
so that men will be free to enter into the Union of Egoists? It
will occur when a sufficient number of men first undergo an
inward change and recognize their own welfare as the highest law,
and then these men will bring into being the outward manifestations:
the abrogation of law, state, and property.
To Stirner revolution and rebellion are not synonymous. Revolution
is an overturning of the condition of the existing state or
society. Revolution is thus a political or social act. Rebellion,
on the other hand, is a transformation of conditions.
Rebellion stems from men's discontent with themselves. It is not
an armed uprising, but a rising up of individuals. Rebellion has
no regard for the arrangements that spring from it. Revolution
aims at new arrangements; rebellion results in people no longer
permitting themselves to be arranged, but to arrange for themselves,
placing no great hope on existing institutions. Rebellion is
not a fight against the established order, but if it
succeeds, it will result in the downfall of that order. Stirner
does not want to overthrow the establishment of order merely to
overthrow it. He is interested in elevating himself above it.
His purpose is not political, nor social, but egoistic.
To bring about the transformation of condition and put the new
condition in the place of law, the state, or property, violent
rebellion against the existing conditions is necessary. Force is
necessary. If each man is to have what he requires
he must take it. This will necessarily mean a war of each
against all, for the poor become free and proprietors only when
they rebel. The state can only be overcome by violent rebellion.
Only rebellion can succeed. Revolution will fail because
it will only result in setting up another unfavorable political
or social condition. Only rebellion can entirely eliminate
unfavorable political and social conditions and permit man to
enter into the Union of Egoists where he will be able to achieve
the highest realization of self.
Stirner's Critics.
Stirner's critics did not take long to reply to his book. 15 His
principal critics were Kuno Fischer, Ludwig Feuerbach, Moses
Hess, Bruno Bauer, Marx and Engels. Marx and Engels wrote an
extensive, almost word-for-word refutation of Stirner's book
which was not accepted for publication at the time. In the main
his loudest critics were his former friends from Die Freien. Der
Einzige und sein Eigenthum was not released until December 1844
but already in November Engels had obtained a copy from Otto
Wigand. In a letter of November 19, 1844, Engels wrote to Marx that "we
must not cast it [Stirner's book] aside," and that even though
they were opposed to the ideas in the book they should make use
of what they found there.
But what is true in his principle, we, too, must accept. And what is true is that before we can be active in any cause we must make it our own, egoistic cause-and that in this sense, quite aside from any material expectations, we are communists in virtue of our egoism, that out of egoism we want to be human beings and not merely individuals. 16
On January 17, 1845, Hess wrote to Marx outlining Ms proposed
attack on Stirner. 17 Arnold Ruge in a letter of December 6, 1844,
to Fröbel wrote that Stirner's book was a good criticism of
communism. 18 To his mother, Ruge wrote on December 17, 1844, that
Stirner's book was the first readable work of philosophy in
Germany. 19 Bruno Bauer Is criticism appeared in the article
written by Sozeliga. 20 Feuerbach's 21 and Bauer's attacks were
hurried denunciations, more personal than philosophical.
Marx 22 evidently viewed Stirner's book as a great threat.
He attacked it systematically in Die deutsche Ideologie which is
practically a point-by-point criticism of Der Einzige und sein
Eigenthum. In order to understand fully his attack you have to
read it together with Stirner's book. Marx attempted to undermine
the basis of Stirner's position. His comments are more than
a personal vendetta against Stirner, it is one system of thought
clashing with another, with Marx in the final outcome the beneficiary.
Unlike the others, when criticizing Der Einzige, Marx
gauged the positive merit of Stirner's work as well as the negative.
He acknowledged that Stirner was correct when he
pointed out the failure of the existing system to deal with
poverty. Marx furthermore agreed with Stirner that the practice
of getting to the wealthy man's purse by appealing to his sense
of piety and fair play, often referred to as "sentimental and
idealistic philanthropy," was not sufficient. He also agreed
with Stirner's contention that the process of man gaining his
self-identity would, of necessity, involve class warfare. He
praised Stirner for pointing out the hollowness of slogans which
appealed to humanity, country, reason, justice, or abstract freedom.
Stirner pointed out that these abstractions only tended to muddle
and conceal the real issues. He liked Stirner's attack on private
property, but he pointed out that Stirner had little insight
into the origins of private property. Marx also agreed with
Stirner's criticism of the doctrine of natural rights although he
himself did not subscribe to Stirner's reasons nor his emphasis
on egoism. Marx welcomed Stirner's claims that genuine freedom
implied material power, because he reasoned that political democracy
could never result in social democracy because in a political
democracy which emphasizes free competition "he person without
the material means was in an unfavorable position from the outset.
It should be noted, however, that Stirner was no admirer of
social democracy, which he viewed as a subterfuge through which
the weak oppressed the strong. Marx also concurred with Stirner
that revolution, which stops short at political reforms, can never
guarantee the freedom of the people. Revolution can only
guarantee the freedom of expression, which really means nothing
because, in the final analysis, no state would permit itself to
be ground to nothingness by this freedom of expression.
The negative aspects of Der Einzige which Marx finds, are that while Stirner rejects God, freedom, immortality, and humanity, he nontheless
retains their method. Stirner, according to Marx, has only
replaced the abstractions of God with an even
more monstrous abstraction-the ego. Marx related that Stirner
rejected the ideals of patriotism, church, and family as empty
abstractions which pretended to be something they were not, but
then questions whether Stirner's devotion to the ego is really
any different than devotion to God or country. Isn't a man more
than merely his ego? Can you strip him of his social relationships
and social dependencies, strip him of his bare ego, finding
these the source of his friendships, his love, and his work? Can
this be done? Or would it not be more correct to say that once
you have done this you have destroyed him, or at least his
uniqueness is destroyed. Personality exists within society. It
is the effect of social life and not the pre-condition thereof.
Different social systems produce different types of personalities.
To understand personality you have to understand the
environment in which it functions. Therefore the pure, isolated
ego is something which never was and never can be.
Marx further attacks Stirner's subjectivism which comes about
from the contention that the ego conditions social life rather
than social life conditioning the ego. Marx thought that in not
recognizing the sovereignty of the state Stirner was only deluding
himself. Stirner, in Marx's estimation, could not effectively
struggle against the state because he did not realize what was
the real source of its corporate abstraction. To do away with
the state dialectically on paper means nothing. It is still
there, you cannot ignore this fact.
Marx also attacks Stirner for his belief that you can isolate an
individuals state of mind from the society in which he lives. It
is Marx's contention that a man's state of mind is something that
is made up of a succession of states of mind; on the other hand,
Stirner believed that this state of mind was controlled by self.
Marx says he is mistaken that the world does consist of more than
a state of mind. What a person sees and how he views it is
determined by something which is not a state of mind at al
l. People see different things because of their different
social environments. What is significant in one society may or
may not be important in another. Marx concludes that:
Stirner's social nominalism, therefore, not only is incapable of explaining what the individual consciousness finds but cannot explain the significant modes of the activity of consciousness proper-its wishing, fearing and appraising. Stirner ... is erecting the contemporary order of things and consciousness into the historical invariant. Stirner's standpoint is religious because what ever history it does treat of, turns out to be a history of ideas. The world, as it existed before Stirner came on the scene, is explaihed by a double inconsistency, as the result of man's mistaken religious ideas. 23
This criticism of Stirner by Marx is important for therein is
contained the germ of his new philosophy of history:
The standpoint with which one satisfies himself in such histories of the spirit is itself religious, for in it one is content to stop short with Religion, to conceive Religion as a cause of itself. This is done instead of explaining Religion in terms of material conditions; showing how certain determinate industrial and commercial relations are necessarily bound up with certain social forms, how these are themselves bound up with certain forms of the state and therewith with a certain form of religious consciousness. Had Stirner acquainted himself with the real history of the Middle Ages he would have discovered why the ideas of the Christians in the medieval world took the exact form they did, and how it came about that these ideas later developed into others. He would have found that "Christianity" had no history at all and that all the different forms in which it was held at different times were not "self-determinations" and progressive realizations of the "religious spirit," but that they were effected by completely empirical causes quite removed from any influence of the religious spirit. 24
Marx attacked Stirner's egoistic anarchism by attempting to
demonstrate that it is self-defeating. According to Marx the
individual can gain greater freedom and develop his individuality
better by associating himself with the group, which will protect
his individual differences better than he himself can. The
absence of group support will in time deprive the individual of
the opportunity to capitalize on his individualized abilities.
Then, according to Marx, man's individual interest, economic as
well as noneconomic, lies in the group. It is a sacrifice on the
part of all involved but will result in harmony among men. This
harmony makes it possible to "create institutional guarantees and
mechanism by which the advantages of the specific capacities of
all may be made available for all." 25
Naturally Marx disagreed with Stirner's concept of "one's own."
He pointed out that this is an artificial abstraction, and that no
man can make a claim for what is exclusively his own. Marx also
criticized Stirner's concept of "self interest" or "one's interest."
Furthermore, Marx demonstrates that the individual "I,"
which Stirner considered to be above every social limitation,
whether proletarian or bourgeois, is nothing more than the
expression of the German petite bourgeois who aspired to become
bourgeois.
Stirner's Influence.
It is difficult to assess accurately the influence of Stirner.
There is definitely a connection between his thought and the
school of individualist anarchism. The connecting link between
Stirner and other thinkers and movements is not so easily
established; however, some writers portray Stirner as a precursor of
Nietzsche, while others point out that the seeds of fascism are
found in Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum, Still others place
Stirner as a forerunner of existentialism. I myself can see a
logical parallel between Stirner and Rudi Dutschke, contemporary leader of
the Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund. Much is attributed
to Stirner today, but during his life time he was not able to
attract any disciples or school of followers.
Stirner's influence during his life time seems to be limited to
Julius Faucher (1820-1878), who represented Stirner's
ideas in his newspaper the Berliner Abendpost. This paper was,
of course, quickly suppressed. 26 Zenker gives us an example of
Faucher's comprehension of Stirner's thought:
How strange and anomalous Stirner's individualism appeared even to the most advanced Radicals of Germany in that period appears very clearly from a conversation recorded by Max Wirth, which Faucher had with the stalwart Republican Schlöffel, in an inn frequented by the Left party in the Parliament in Frankfurt. "Schlöffel loved to boast of his Radical opinions, just as at that time many men took a pride in being, just as extreme as possible among the members of the Left. He expressed his astonishment that Faucher held aloof from the current of politics." "It is because you are too near the Right party for me," answered Faucher, who delighted in astonishing people with paradoxes. Schlöffel stroked his long beard proudly, and replied, "Do you say that to me?" "Yes," continued Faucher, "for you are a Republican incarnate; you still want a State. Now I do not want a State at all, and, consequently, I am a more extreme member of the Left than you." It was the first time Schlöffel had heard these paradoxes, and he replied: "Nonsense; who can emancipate us from the State?" "Crime," was Faucher's reply, uttered with an expression of pathos. Schlöffel turned away, and left the drinking party without saying a word more. The others broke out laughing at the proud demagogue being thus outdone: but no one seems to have suspected in the words of Faucher more than a joke in dialectics. This anecdote is a good example of the way in which Stirner's ideas were understood, and shows that Faucher was the only individual "individual" among the most Radical politicians of that time. 27
Nettlau agrees with Zenker when he writes that "few
books have been so misunderstood or subjected to so many varying
critical examinations." 28
Stirner's greatest influence came toward the end of the 19th
century. It is generally acknowledged that Stirner is the father
of individualist anarchism. The individualist anarchist movement,
which started in Germany in the 1890 Is, can be traced
directly to the writings of Stirner.
Was Nietzsche influenced by Stirner? 29 In spite of Crane Brinton's 30
protest to the contrary Nietzsche probably was. Although
Stirner is not mentioned in Nietzsche's writings, numerous studies
have compared their writings. In the final analysis there is
but one piece of evidence to prove that Nietzsche knew Stirner. 31
Löwith states the case:
Stirner is nowhere mentioned in Nietzsche's writings; but Overbeck's witness proves that Nietzsche knew of him, and not only through Lange's history of materialism. And Nietzsche was so "economical," with his knowledge of Stirner because he was both attracted to and repelled by him, and did not want to be confused with him. 32
Another interesting facet of Stirnerism is its influence on the
development of fascism, specifically with regard to Mussolini.
It is known that Mussolini studied Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum
and admired the individualism of Stirner. Laura Fermi only
raises the question of the influence of Stirner's thought on
Mussolini, and does not go into detail. Her account suggests
that a thorough study of Mussolini's writings would probably
establish a firm connection. 33
In recent years it has become fashionable to consider Stirner as
an early exponent of existentialism, as a forerunner of Kierkegaard.
Karl Löwith states that
Kierkegaard follows Stirner as the antithesis of Marx. Like Stirner, lie reduces the entire social world to his own "self. But at the same time he finds himself in absolute opposition to Stirner; instead of ground in the individual upon creative nothingness, he places the individual "before God," the creator of the world. 34
Martin Buber also makes it a point to demonstrate Kierkegaard's
debt to Stirner. 35 Both Herbert Reed 36 and Henri Arvon 37 pose the
question, if Christian existentialism recognizes Kierkegaard, why
does atheistic existentialism continue to ignore Stirner? Even
though many of the characters in the plays and novels of the
atheistic existentialist writers are constructed round a philosophy
which seems to be identical with Stirner's, there is no way
to prove this satisfactorily with concrete evidence.
The atheistic existentialists may disregard Stirner, but Stirner
is popular today. The battles which Marx fought out with
Stirner, Bakunin and other anarchists, and which he thought he
had won, solved nothing. The giants he slew have once again come
to life. The issues raised by Stirner and countered by Marx have
a definite relevance in the world today, especially in the United
States, France and West Germany. Marxism once again is engaged
in a life and death struggle with anarchism. It would appear
that the anarchists will win a victory over the Marxists at least
in France, West Germany and even in the United States where
anarchism seems to hold out more of a promise to the Radical Left
of solving the world's problems than Marxism in West Germany,
France, and the United States anarchists and other groups today
advocate making, use of rebellion to bring down the state which they refer to as the
Establishment. Rudi Dutschke, 38 in Germany, would set up
small groups of people very similar to Stirner's Union of Egoists.
Dutschke, and some militants of the SDS, have pointed out
that only rebellion can succeed in freeing the individual.
Revolution only succeeds in setting up a new arrangement; it does
not transform society. They use the example of the Russian
Revolution to demonstrate the failure of revolution as a vehicle
for setting the individual free. I do not know if Dutschke has studied
Stirner's writings, but there is a logical parallel between his
faith in rebellion, and the development of small groups to set
people free, and Stirner's similar belief in the superiority of
rebellion over revolution and Stirner's Union of Egoists.
✳ ✳ ✳