The Info List - Max Stirner

--- Advertisement ---

JOHANN KASPAR SCHMIDT (October 25, 1806 – June 26, 1856), better known as MAX STIRNER, was a German philosopher. He is often seen as one of the forerunners of nihilism , existentialism , psychoanalytic theory , postmodernism , and individualist anarchism . Stirner's main work is _ The Ego and Its Own _, also known as _The Ego and His Own_ (_Der Einzige und sein Eigentum_ in German, which translates literally as _The Individual and His Property_ ). This work was first published in 1845 in Leipzig , and has since appeared in numerous editions and translations.


* 1 Biography

* 2 Philosophy

* 2.1 Egoism

* 2.2 Anarchism

* 2.2.1 Union of egoists * 2.2.2 Revolution

* 2.3 Hegel\'s possible influence

* 3 Works

* 3.1 _The False Principle of our Education_ * 3.2 _Art and Religion_ * 3.3 _The Ego and Its Own_ * 3.4 _Stirner\'s Critics_ * 3.5 _The Philosophical Reactionaries: \'The Modern Sophists\' by Kuno Fischer_ * 3.6 _History of Reaction_

* 4 Critical reception * 5 Comments by contemporaries

* 6 Influence

* 6.1 Marx and Engels * 6.2 Stirner and post-structuralism * 6.3 Possible influence on Nietzsche * 6.4 Rudolf Steiner * 6.5 Anarchism * 6.6 Free love, homosexuals, and feminists

* 7 See also * 8 Notes * 9 References * 10 Further reading

* 11 External links

* 11.1 General * 11.2 Relationship with other philosophers * 11.3 Texts


Max Stirner's birthplace in Bayreuth

Stirner was born in Bayreuth , Bavaria. What little is known of his life is mostly due to the Scottish-born German writer John Henry Mackay , who wrote a biography of Stirner (_ Max Stirner – sein Leben und sein Werk_), published in German in 1898 (enlarged 1910, 1914), and translated into English in 2005.

Stirner was the only child of Albert Christian Heinrich Schmidt (1769–1807) and Sophia Elenora Reinlein (1778–1839). His father died of tuberculosis on April 19, 1807 at the age of 37. In 1809 his mother remarried to Heinrich Ballerstedt, a pharmacist , and settled in West Prussian Kulm (now Chełmno , Poland).

When Stirner turned 20, he attended the University of Berlin , where he studied philology , philosophy, and theology. He attended the lectures of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel , who was to become a source of inspiration for his thinking. He attended Hegel's lectures on the history of philosophy, the philosophy of religion and the subjective spirit. Stirner then moved to the University of Erlangen , which he attended at the same time as Ludwig Feuerbach .

Stirner returned to Berlin and obtained a teaching certificate, but was unable to obtain a full-time teaching post from the Prussian government.

While in Berlin in 1841, Stirner participated in discussions with a group of young philosophers called " Die Freien " ("The Free"), and whom historians have subsequently categorized as the Young Hegelians . Some of the best known names in nineteenth century literature and philosophy were involved with this group, including Karl Marx , Friedrich Engels , Bruno Bauer , and Arnold Ruge . Contrary to popular belief, Feuerbach was not a member of Die Freien, although he was heavily involved in Young Hegelian discourse. While some of the Young Hegelians were eager subscribers to Hegel's dialectical method and attempted to apply dialectical approaches to Hegel's conclusions, the left-wing members of the group broke with Hegel. Feuerbach and Bauer led this charge.

Frequently the debates would take place at Hippel's, a wine bar in Friedrichstraße , attended by, among others, Marx and Engels, who were both adherents of Feuerbach at the time. Stirner met with Engels many times, and Engels even recalled that they were "great friends", but it is still unclear whether Marx and Stirner ever met. It does not appear that Stirner contributed much to the discussions, but he was a faithful member of the club and an attentive listener.

The most-often reproduced portrait of Stirner is a cartoon by Engels, drawn 40 years later from memory at biographer Mackay's request. It is highly likely that this and the group sketch of Die Freien at Hippel's are the only firsthand images of Stirner.

Stirner worked as a teacher in a school for young girls owned by Madame Gropius when he wrote his major work, _ The Ego and Its Own _, which in part is a polemic against Feuerbach and Bauer, but also against communists such as Wilhelm Weitling and the anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon . He resigned from his teaching position in anticipation of controversy from this work's publication in October 1844.

Stirner married twice. His first wife was a household servant, with whom he fell in love at an early age. She died from complications with pregnancy in 1838, soon after their marriage. In 1843 he married Marie Dähnhardt , an intellectual associated with Die Freien. They divorced in 1846. _The Ego and Its Own_ was dedicated "to my sweetheart Marie Dähnhardt". Marie later converted to Catholicism and died in 1902 in London.

Stirner planned and financed (with Marie's inheritance) an attempt by some Young Hegelians to own and operate a milk-shop on co-operative principles. This enterprise failed partly because the dairy farmers were suspicious of these well-dressed intellectuals. The milk shop was also so well decorated that most of the potential customers felt too poorly dressed to buy their milk there.

After _The Ego and Its Own_, Stirner wrote _Stirner's Critics_ and translated Adam Smith 's _ The Wealth of Nations _ and Jean-Baptiste Say 's _Traite d'Economie Politique_ into German, to little financial gain. He also wrote a compilation of texts titled _History of Reaction_ in 1852. Stirner died in 1856 in Berlin from an infected insect bite; it is said that Bruno Bauer was the only Young Hegelian present at his funeral, which was held at the Friedhof II der Sophiengemeinde Berlin .


Main article: Philosophy of Max Stirner See also: Egotism and Egoist anarchism

Part of a series on


Topics and concepts

* Autonomy * Civil liberties * Do it yourself * Eremitism * Free love * Freethought * Human rights * Individual * Individual rights * Individual reclamation * Individuation * Laissez-faire * Libertinism * Liberty * Methodological individualism * Negative liberty * Personal property * Positive liberty * Private property * Self-actualization * Self-ownership * Self reliance * Subjectivity


* Antiphon * Aristippus * Aristotle * Émile Armand * Albert Camus * Diogenes of Sinope * Ralph Waldo Emerson * Epicurus * William Godwin * Emma Goldman * Friedrich Hayek * Karl Hess * Miguel Giménez Igualada * Thomas Jefferson * Laozi * Albert Libertad * John Locke * Hipparchia of Maroneia * H. L. Mencken * John Stuart Mill * Ludwig von Mises * Michel de Montaigne * Friedrich Nietzsche * Renzo Novatore * Robert Nozick * Michel Onfray * Georges Palante * Horst Matthai Quelle * Ayn Rand * Murray Rothbard * Han Ryner * Marquis de Sade * Arthur Schopenhauer * Adam Smith * Herbert Spencer * Lysander Spooner * Max Stirner * Henry David Thoreau * Benjamin Tucker * James L. Walker * Josiah Warren * Oscar Wilde * Zeno * Yang Zhu


* Anarchism * Anarcho-capitalism * Classical liberalism * Egoist anarchism * Ethical egoism * Existentialism * Hedonism * Humanism * Individualist anarchism

* Individualist feminism

* Equity feminism * Liberal feminism

* Left-libertarianism * Left-wing market anarchism * Liberalism * Libertarianism * Libertarian socialism * Minarchism * Mutualism * Objectivism * Right libertarianism * Social anarchism * Voluntaryism

Principal concerns

* Anti-individualism * Authoritarianism * Collectivism * Conformity * Dogmatism * Group rights * Herd mentality * Indoctrination * Mass society * Mobbing * Social engineering * Statism * Tyranny * Tyranny of the majority * Theocracy * Totalitarianism

* v * t * e

Caricature of Max Stirner taken from a sketch by Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) of the meetings of "Die Freien".

The philosophy of Stirner is credited as a major influence in the development of nihilism , existentialism , post-modernism , and individualist anarchism , postanarchism , and post-left anarchy . Stirner's main philosophical work was _ The Ego and Its Own _, also known as _The Ego and His Own_ (_Der Einzige und sein Eigentum_ in German, which translates literally as _The Unique One and His Property_).


Stirner argues that you and I are each something impossible to fully comprehend. All mere concepts of the self will always be inadequate to fully describe the nature of our experience. Stirner has been broadly understood as a proponent of both psychological egoism and ethical egoism , although the latter position can be disputed, as there is no claim in Stirner's writing, in which one 'ought to' pursue one's own interest, and further claiming any 'ought' could be seen as a new 'fixed idea'. However, he may be understood as a rational egoist in the sense that he considered it irrational not to act in one's self-interest. How this self-interest is defined, however, is necessarily subjective, allowing both selfish and altruistic normative claims to be included.

Individual self-realization rests on each individual's desire to fulfill their egoism . The difference between an unwilling and a willing egoist, is that the former will be 'possessed' by an empty idea and believe that they are fulfilling a higher cause, but usually being unaware that they are only fulfilling their own desires to be happy or secure, and the latter, in contrast, will be a person that is able to freely choose its actions, fully aware that they are only fulfilling individual desires.

Sacred things exist only for the egoist who does not acknowledge himself, the _involuntary egoist_ ... in short, for the egoist who would like not to be an egoist, and abases himself (combats his egoism), but at the same time abases himself only for the sake of "being exalted", and therefore of gratifying his egoism. 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... this account I call him the involuntary egoist. ...As you are each instant, you are your own creature in this very 'creature' you do not wish to lose yourself, the creator. You are yourself a higher being than you are, and surpass yourself ... just this, as an involuntary egoist, you fail to recognize; and therefore the 'higher essence' is to you – an alien essence. ... Alienness is a criterion of the "sacred". — Ibidem, Cambridge edition, pp. 37–38

The contrast is also expressed in terms of the difference between the voluntary egoist being the possessor of his concepts as opposed to being possessed. Only when one realizes that all sacred truths such as law, right , morality , religion etc., are nothing other than artificial concepts, and not to be obeyed, can one act freely. For Stirner, to be free is to be both one's own "creature" (in the sense of 'creation') and one's own "creator" (dislocating the traditional role assigned to the gods). To Stirner power is the method of egoism. It is the only justified method of gaining property .


Stirner 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 illusions, "spooks" or _ghosts_ in the mind.

He advocated egoism and a form of 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: "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." And, "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 says, "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!" Stirner considers the world and everything in it, including other persons, available to one's taking or use without moral constraint – 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" (_The Ego and Its Own_).

Union Of Egoists

Main article: Union of egoists

Stirner's idea of the "Union of Egoists ", was first expounded in _ The Ego and Its Own _. 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 criticizes conventional notions of revolution , arguing that social movements aimed at overturning the state are tacitly statist because they are implicitly aimed at the establishment of a new state thereafter.


Scholars such as Karl Löwith and Lawrence Stepelevich have argued that Hegel was a major influence on _ The Ego and Its Own _. Stepelevich argues, that while _ The Ego and its Own _ evidently has an "un-Hegelian structure and tone to the work as a whole", as well as being fundamentally hostile to Hegel's conclusions about the self and the world, this does not mean that Hegel had no effect on Stirner.

The main juncture leading from Hegel to Stirner is found __ at the termination of a phenomenological passage to absolute knowledge. Stirner's work is most clearly understood when it is taken to be the answer to the question, 'what role will consciousness play after it has traversed the series of shapes known as 'untrue' knowledge and has attained to absolute knowledge? _— Lawrence Stepelevich, "Max Stirner as Hegelian",_ Journal of the History of Ideas_, v.15, pp. 597–614 (1985)._

To go beyond and against Hegel in true dialectical fashion is in some way continuing Hegel's project, and Stepelevich argues that this effort of Stirner's is, in fact a completion of Hegel's project. Stepelevich concludes his argument referring to Jean Hyppolite , who in summing up the intention of Hegel's _Phenomenology_, stated: "The history of the world is finished; all that is needed is for the specific individual to rediscover it in himself."

Stirner as an Einziger took himself directly to be that 'specific individual' and then went on as a Hegelian to propose the practical consequence which would ultimately follow upon that theoretical rediscovery, the free play of self-consciousness among the objects of its own determination: "The idols exist through me; I need only refrain from creating them anew, then they exist no longer: 'higher powers' exist only through my exalting them and abasing myself.... My intercourse with the world consists in my enjoying it, and so consuming it for my self-enjoyment" (_Ego_, 319) — Lawrence Stepelevich, " Max Stirner as Hegelian"

Scholars such as Douglas Moggach and Widukind De Ridder have argued 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 Bruno Bauer and Ludwig Feuerbach's emancipatory claims as well. Contrary to Hegel, who considered the given as an inadequate embodiment of rationality, Stirner leaves the given intact by considering it a mere object, not of transformation, but of enjoyment and consumption ("His Own"). Stirner does not go beyond Hegel according to Douglas Moggach, but in fact leaves the domain of philosophy in its entirety:

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’. —  Douglas Moggach engl. trans. _ The Ego and Its Own ,_ literally _The Unique and Its Property_), which appeared in Leipzig in October 1844, with as year of publication mentioned 1845. In _The Ego And Its Own_, Stirner launches a radical anti-authoritarian and individualist critique of contemporary Prussian society, and modern western society as such. He offers an approach to human existence in which he depicts himself as "the unique one," a "creative nothing," beyond the ability of language to fully express.

If I concern myself for myself, the unique one, then my concern rests on its transitory, mortal creator, who consumes himself, and I may say: All things are nothing to me. — Max Stirner, _The Ego and Its Own _, p. 324.

The book proclaims that all religions and ideologies rest on empty concepts. The same holds true for society's institutions that claim authority over the individual, be it the state, legislation, the church, or the systems of education such as Universities.

Stirner's argument explores and extends the limits of criticism, aiming his critique especially at those of his contemporaries, particularly Ludwig Feuerbach and Bruno Bauer, and at popular ideologies, including religion, liberalism , and humanism (which he regarded as analogous to religion with the abstract Man or humanity as the supreme being), nationalism , statism , capitalism , socialism , and communism .

In the time of spirits thoughts grew till they overtopped my head, whose offspring they yet were; they hovered about me and convulsed me like fever-phantasies – an awful power. The thoughts had become corporeal on their own account, were ghosts, e. g. God, Emperor, Pope, Fatherland, etc. If I destroy their corporeity, then I take them back into mine, and say: "I alone am corporeal." And now I take the world as what it is to me, as mine, as my property; I refer all to myself. — Max Stirner, _ The Ego and Its Own _, p. 17.


_Recensenten Stirners_ (_Stirner's Critics_) was published in September 1845 in _Wigands Vierteljahrsschrift_. It is a response, in which Stirner refers to himself in the third-person, to three critical reviews of _The Ego and its Own_ by Moses Hess in _Die letzten Philosophen_ (_The Last Philosophers_), by a certain "Szeliga" (alias of an adherent of Bruno Bauer ) in an article in the journal _Norddeutsche Blätter_, and by Ludwig Feuerbach anonymously in an article called _Über 'Das Wesen des Christentums' in Beziehung auf Stirners 'Der Einzige und sein Eigentum'_ (_On 'The Essence of Christianity' in Relation to Stirner's 'The Ego and its Own'_ ) in _Wigands Vierteljahrsschrift_.


_Die Philosophischen Reactionäre_ (_The Philosophical Reactionaries_) was published in 1847 in _Die Epigonen_, a journal edited by Otto Wigand from Leipzig. At the time, Wigand had already published _Der Einzige und sein Eigentum_, and was about to finish the publication of Stirner’s translations of Adam Smith and Jean-Baptiste Say. As the subtitle indicates, _Die Philosophischen Reactionäre_ was written in response to an article by Kuno Fischer (1824–1907) entitled _Die Moderne Sophisten_ (1847). The article was signed ‘G. Edward’, and its authorship has been disputed ever since John Henry Mackay ‘cautiously’ attributed it to Stirner and included it in his collection of Stirner’s lesser writings. It was first translated into English in 2011, and the introductory note explains:

Mackay based his attribution of this text to Stirner on Kuno Fischer’s subsequent reply to it, in which the latter, ‘with such determination’, identified G. Edward as Max Stirner. The article was entitled ‘Ein Apologet der Sophistik und “ein Philosophischer Reactionäre” ’ and was published alongside ‘Die Philosophischen Reactionäre’. Moreover, it seems rather odd that Otto Wigand would have published ‘Edward’s’ piece back- to-back with an article that falsely attributed it to one of his personal associates at the time. And, indeed, as Mackay went on to argue, Stirner never refuted this attribution. This remains, however, a slim basis on which to firmly identify Stirner as the author. This circumstantial evidence has led some scholars to cast doubts over Stirner’s authorship, based on both the style and content of ‘Die Philosophischen Reactionäre’. One should, however, bear in mind that it was written almost three years after _Der Einzige und sein Eigentum_, at a time when Young Hegelianism had withered away. —  Max Stirner "The Philosophical Reactionaries: 'The Modern Sophists' by Kuno Fischer", _Newman, Saul (ed.), Max Stirner (Critical Explorations in Contemporary Political Thought), Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 90 (2011)._

The majority of the text deals with Kuno Fischer’s definition of Sophism. With much wit, the self-contradictory nature of Fischer’s criticism of Sophism is exposed. Fischer had made a sharp distinction between Sophism and philosophy, while at the same time considering Sophism as the "mirror image of philosophy". The Sophists breathe "philosophical air" and were "dialectically inspired to a formal volubility". Stirner's answer is striking:

Have you philosophers really no clue that you have been beaten with your own weapons? Only one clue. What can your common sense reply when I dissolve dialectically what you have merely posited dialectically? You have showed me with what kind of ‘volubility’ one can turn everything to nothing and nothing to everything, black into white and white into black. What do you have against me, when I return to you your pure art? — Max Stirner, "The Philosophical Reactionaries: 'The Modern Sophists' by Kuno Fischer", _Newman, Saul (ed.), Max Stirner (Critical Explorations in Contemporary Political Thought), Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 99 (2011)._

Looking back on 'Der Einzige und sein Eigentum', Stirner claims:

Stirner himself has described his book as, in part, a clumsy expression of what he wanted to say. It is the arduous work of the best years of his life, and yet he calls it, in part, ‘clumsy’. That is how hard he struggled with a language that was ruined by philosophers, abused by state- , religious- and other believers, and enabled a boundless confusion of ideas. — Max Stirner, "The Philosophical Reactionaries: 'The Modern Sophists' by Kuno Fischer", _Newman, Saul (ed.), Max Stirner (Critical Explorations in Contemporary Political Thought), Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 104 (2011)._


_Geschichte der Reaktion_ (_History of Reaction_) was published in two volumes in 1851 by Allgemeine Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt and immediately banned in Austria. It was written in the context of the recent 1848 revolutions in German states and is mainly a collection of the works of others selected and translated by Stirner. The introduction and some additional passages were Stirner's work. Edmund Burke and Auguste Comte are quoted to show two opposing views of revolution .


Stirner's work did not go unnoticed among his contemporaries. Stirner's attacks on ideology – in particular Feuerbach's humanism – forced Feuerbach into print. Moses Hess (at that time close to Marx) and Szeliga (pseudonym of Franz Zychlin von Zychlinski , an adherent of Bruno Bauer) also replied to Stirner. Stirner answered the criticism in a German periodical, in the article _Stirner's Critics_ (org. _Recensenten Stirners_, September 1845), which clarifies several points of interest to readers of the book – especially in relation to Feuerbach.

While Marx's _Sankt Max_ (large part of _Die Deutsche Ideologie_/_The German Ideology _), not published until 1932, so assured _The Ego and Its Own_ a place of curious interest among Marxist readers, Marx's ridicule of Stirner has played a significant role in the subsequent marginalization of Stirner's work, in popular and academic discourse.


Twenty years after the appearance of Stirner's book, the author Friedrich Albert Lange wrote the following:

Stirner went so far in his notorious work, 'Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum' (1845), as to reject all moral ideas. Everything that in any way, whether it be external force, belief, or mere idea, places itself above the individual and his caprice, Stirner rejects as a hateful limitation of himself. What a pity that to this book – the extremest that we know anywhere – a second positive part was not added. It would have been easier than in the case of Schelling 's philosophy; for out of the unlimited Ego I can again beget every kind of Idealism as _my_ will and _my_ idea . Stirner lays so much stress upon the will, in fact, that it appears as the root force of human nature. It may remind us of Schopenhauer . — _History of Materialism _, ii. 256 (1865)

Some people believe that, in a sense, a "second positive part" was soon to be added, though not by Stirner, but by Friedrich Nietzsche . The relationship between Nietzsche and Stirner seems to be much more complicated. According to George J. Stack's _Lange and Nietzsche_, Nietzsche read Lange's _History of Materialism_ "again and again" and was therefore very familiar with the passage regarding Stirner.


While _Der Einzige_ was a critical success and attracted much reaction from famous philosophers after publication, it was out of print and the notoriety that it had provoked had faded many years before Stirner's death. Stirner had a destructive impact on left-Hegelianism , but his philosophy was a significant influence on Marx and his magnum opus became a founding text of individualist anarchism . Edmund Husserl once warned a small audience about the "seducing power" of _Der Einzige_, but never mentioned it in his writing. As the art critic and Stirner admirer Herbert Read observed, the book has remained "stuck in the gizzard" of Western culture since it first appeared.

Many thinkers have read and been affected by _ The Ego and Its Own _ in their youth including Rudolf Steiner , Gustav Landauer , Victor Serge , Carl Schmitt and Jürgen Habermas . Few openly admit any influence on their own thinking. Ernst Jünger 's book _ Eumeswil _, had the character of the "Anarch ", based on Stirner's "Einzige." Several other authors, philosophers and artists have cited, quoted or otherwise referred to Max Stirner. They include Albert Camus in _The Rebel _ (the section on Stirner is omitted from the majority of English editions including Penguin 's), Benjamin Tucker , James Huneker , Dora Marsden , Renzo Novatore , Emma Goldman , Georg Brandes , John Cowper Powys , Martin Buber , Sidney Hook , Robert Anton Wilson , Horst Matthai , Frank Brand , Marcel Duchamp , several writers of the Situationist International including Raoul Vaneigem , and Max Ernst . Years before rising to power, Benito Mussolini was inspired by Stirner, and made several references to him in his newspaper articles. The similarities in style between _The Ego and Its Own_ and Oscar Wilde 's The Soul of Man Under Socialism have caused some historians to speculate that Wilde (who could read German) was familiar with the book.

Since its appearance in 1844, _The Ego and Its Own_ has seen periodic revivals of popular, political and academic interest, based around widely divergent translations and interpretations – some psychological, others political in their emphasis. Today, many ideas associated with post-left anarchy 's criticism of ideology and uncompromising individualism are clearly related to Stirner's. He has also been regarded as pioneering individualist feminism , since his objection to any absolute concept also clearly counts gender roles as "spooks". His ideas were also adopted by post-anarchism , with Saul Newman largely in agreement with many of Stirner's criticisms of classical anarchism , including his rejection of revolution and essentialism .


_ Caricature by Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) of the meetings of "Die Freien"_

Engels commented on Stirner in poetry at the time of _ Die Freien _:

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 willpower and you dare to call yourselves free. You become accustomed to slavery Down with dogmatism , down with law.

He once even recalled at how they were "great friends (Duzbrüder)". In November 1844, Engels wrote a letter to Marx. He reported first on a visit to Moses Hess in Cologne and then went on to note that during this visit Hess had given him a press copy of a new book by Max Stirner, _Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum_. In his letter to Marx, Engels promised to send a copy of _Der Einzige_ to him, for it certainly deserved their attention, as Stirner: "had obviously, among the 'Free Ones', the most talent, independence and diligence". To begin with Engels was enthusiastic about the book, and expressed his opinions freely in letters to Marx:

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."

Later, Marx and Engels wrote a major criticism of Stirner's work. The number of pages Marx and Engels devote to attacking Stirner in (the unexpurgated text of) _ The German Ideology _, in which they derided him as "_Sankt Max_" (Saint Max), exceeds the total of Stirner's written works. As Isaiah Berlin has described it, Stirner "is pursued through five hundred pages of heavy-handed mockery and insult". The book was written in 1845–1846, but not published until 1932. Marx's lengthy, ferocious polemic against Stirner has since been considered an important turning point in Marx's intellectual development from idealism to materialism . It has been argued that historical materialism was Marx's method of reconciling communism with a Stirnerite rejection of morality.


See also: Post-anarchism

The influential French poststructuralist thinker Jacques Derrida in his book _ Specters of Marx _ dealt with Stirner and his relationship with Marx while also analysing Stirner's concept of "specters" or "spooks". Gilles Deleuze , another key thinker associated with post-structuralism mentions Stirner briefly in his book _The Logic of Sense _. Saul Newman calls Stirner a proto-poststructuralist who on the one hand had essentially anticipated modern post-structuralists such as Foucault , Lacan , Deleuze , and Derrida , but on the other had already transcended them, thus providing what they were unable to: a ground for a non-essentialist critique of present liberal capitalist society. This is particularly evident in Stirner's identification of the self with a "creative nothing", a thing that cannot be bound by ideology (like leftist or marxists ideology of French postructuralists), inaccessible to representation in language.


Main article: Relationship between Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner

The ideas of Max Stirner and Friedrich Nietzsche have often been compared, and many authors have discussed apparent similarities in their writings, sometimes raising the question of influence. In Germany, during the early years of Nietzsche's emergence as a well-known figure, the only thinker discussed in connection with his ideas more often than Stirner was Schopenhauer . It is certain that Nietzsche read about _The Ego and Its Own_, which was mentioned in Lange\'s _History of Materialism_ and Eduard von Hartmann 's _Philosophy of the Unconscious_, both of which Nietzsche knew well. However, there is no indication that he actually read it, as no mention of Stirner is known to exist anywhere in Nietzsche's publications, papers or correspondence. In 2002, a biographical discovery revealed it is probable that Nietzsche had encountered Stirner's ideas before he read Hartmann and Lange, in October 1865, when he met with Eduard Mushacke, an old friend of Stirner's during the 1840s.

And yet as soon as Nietzsche's work began to reach a wider audience, the question of whether he owed a debt of influence to Stirner was raised. As early as 1891 (while Nietzsche was still alive, though incapacitated by mental illness), Eduard von Hartmann went so far as to suggest that he had plagiarized Stirner. By the turn of the century, the belief that Nietzsche had been influenced by Stirner was so widespread that it became something of a commonplace, at least in Germany, prompting one observer to note in 1907 "Stirner's influence in modern Germany has assumed astonishing proportions, and moves in general parallel with that of Nietzsche. The two thinkers are regarded as exponents of essentially the same philosophy."

Nevertheless, from the beginning of what was characterized as "great debate" regarding Stirner's possible positive influence on Nietzsche, serious problems with the idea were noted. By the middle of the twentieth century, if Stirner was mentioned at all in works on Nietzsche, the idea of influence was often dismissed outright or abandoned as unanswerable.

But the idea that Nietzsche was influenced in some way by Stirner continues to attract a significant minority, perhaps because it seems necessary to explain the oft-noted (though arguably superficial) similarities in their writings. In any case, the most significant problems with the theory of possible Stirner influence on Nietzsche are not limited to the difficulty in establishing whether the one man knew of or read the other. They also consist in establishing precisely how and why Stirner in particular might have been a meaningful influence on a man as widely read as Nietzsche.


The individualist-anarchist orientation of Rudolf Steiner 's early philosophy – before he turned to theosophy around 1900 – has strong parallels to, and was admittedly influenced by Stirner's conception of the ego, for which Steiner claimed to have provided a philosophical foundation.


Part of the Politics series on



Schools of thought

* Black * Capitalist * Christian * Collectivist * Communist * Egoist * Existentialist * Feminist * Green * Individualist * Insurrectionary * Leftist * Left-wing market * Magonist * Mutualist * Naturist * Pacifist * Philosophical * Platformist * Post-anarchist * Post-colonial * Post-left * Primitivist * Queer * Social * Syndicalist * Synthesist * Vegan * Without adjectives

* Theory * Practice

* Anarchy * Anarchist Black Cross * Anationalism * Anti-authoritarianism * Anti-militarism * Affinity group * Black bloc * Classless society * Class struggle * Communes * Consensus democracy * Conscientious objector * Counter-economics * Decentralization * Deep ecology * Direct action * Direct democracy * Dual power * Especifismo * Expropriative anarchism * Free association * Free love * Free school * Freethought * Horizontalidad * Illegalism * Individualism * Individual reclamation * Isocracy * Law * Mutual aid * Participatory politics * Permanent autonomous zone * Prefigurative politics * Proletarian internationalism * Propaganda of the deed * Refusal of work * Revolution * Rewilding * Self-ownership * Social center * Social ecology * Social insertion * Somatherapy * Spontaneous order * Squatting * Temporary Autonomous Zone _ * Union of egoists


* Émile Armand * Mikhail Bakunin * Alexander Berkman * Alfredo M. Bonanno * Murray Bookchin * Noam Chomsky * Buenaventura Durruti * Sébastien Faure * Mahatma Gandhi * William Godwin * Emma Goldman * Francesc Ferrer i Guàrdia * Peter Kropotkin * Gustav Landauer * Ricardo Flores Magón * Nestor Makhno * Errico Malatesta * Louise Michel * Johann Most * Rudolf Rocker * Murray Rothbard * Pierre-Joseph Proudhon * Diego Abad de Santillán * Lysander Spooner * Max Stirner * Henry David Thoreau * Leo Tolstoy * Benjamin Tucker * Volin * Colin Ward * Josiah Warren * John Zerzan


* Anarcho-capitalism * Crypto-anarchism * Animal rights * Capitalism * Education * Criticisms * Islam * Lifestylism * Marxism * Nationalism * Orthodox Judaism * Religion * Love and sex * Violence


* Paris Commune * Cantonal Revolution * Hague Congress * International Conference of Rome * Trial of the Thirty * Haymarket affair * May Day * Anarchist Exclusion Act * Congress of Amsterdam * Tragic Week * High Treason Incident * _ Manifesto of the Sixteen _ * Individualist anarchism in the United States * 1919 United States bombings * Biennio Rosso * German Revolution of 1918–19 * Bavarian Council Republic * Kronstadt rebellion * Third Russian Revolution * Free Territory * Amakasu Incident * Escuela Moderna

* Individualist anarchism in Europe (in France ) * Spanish Revolution * Barcelona May Days * Red inverted triangle * Labadie Collection * May 1968 * Provo * LIP * Kate Sharpley Library * Australian Anarchist Centenary * Carnival Against Capital * 1999 Seattle WTO protests * Occupy movement


* Films * Anarchist Bookfair * Anarcho-punk * Arts * Culture jamming * DIY culture * Freeganism * Hip hop * Independent Media Center * Infoshop * _ The Internationale _ * Jewish anarchism * "Land and liberty " * Lifestylism * " No gods, no masters " * Popular education * " Property is theft! " * Radical cheerleading * Radical environmentalism * Red and Anarchist Skinheads * Squatting * Symbolism * Glossary * _ A las Barricadas _


* Communization * Co-operatives * Cost the limit of price * Economic democracy * Economic secession * Gift economy * Give-away shop * Market abolitionism * Mass strike * Mutual aid * Participatory economics * Really Really Free Market * Socialization * Wage slavery * Workers\' self-management

By region

* Africa * Argentina * Australia * Azerbaijan * Bolivia * Brazil * Canada * China * Cuba * Ecuador * Egypt * France * French Guiana * Germany * Greece * India * Iceland * Ireland * Israel * Italy * Japan * Korea * Mexico * Monaco * New Zealand * Poland * Romania * Russia * Singapore * South Africa * Spain * Sweden * Transnistria * Turkey * Ukraine * United Kingdom * United States * Venezuela * Vietnam


* Anarcho-punk bands * Communities * Fictional characters * Jewish anarchists * Love padding:0"> Related topics

* Anti-capitalism * Anti-corporatism * Anti-consumerism * Anti-fascism * Anti-globalization * Anti-statism * Anti-war * Autarchism * Autonomism * Communism * Labour movement * Left communism * Libertarianism * Libertarian socialism * Libertarian marxism * Marxism * Situationist International * Socialism * Spontaneous order

* Anarchism portal * Politics portal

* v * t * e

Main articles: Egoist anarchism and Individualist anarchism

Stirner's philosophy was important in the development of modern anarchist thought, particularly individualist anarchism and egoist anarchism . Although Stirner is usually associated with individualist anarchism , he was influential to many social anarchists such as anarcha-feminists Emma Goldman and Federica Montseny . In european individualist anarchism he influenced its main proponents after him such as Emile Armand , Han Ryner , Renzo Novatore , John Henry Mackay , Miguel Giménez Igualada , and Lev Chernyi .

In American individualist anarchism he found adherence in Benjamin Tucker and his magazine _ Liberty _ while these abandoned natural rights positions for egoism. "Several periodicals were undoubtedly influenced by Liberty's presentation of egoism. They included: I published by C.L. Swartz, edited by W.E. Gordak and J.W. Lloyd (all associates of Liberty); The Ego and The Egoist, both of which were edited by Edward H. Fulton. Among the egoist papers that Tucker followed were the German Der Eigene, edited by Adolf Brand, and The Eagle and The Serpent, issued from London. The latter, the most prominent English-language egoist journal, was published from 1898 to 1900 with the subtitle "A Journal of Egoistic Philosophy and Sociology". Other American egoist anarchists around the early twentieth century include James L. Walker , George Schumm , John Beverley Robinson , Steven T. Byington , and E.H. Fulton .

In the United Kingdom Herbert Read was influenced by Stirner, and noted the closeness of Stirner's egoism to existentialism (see existentialist anarchism ). Later in the 1960s Daniel Guérin in _Anarchism: From Theory to Practice_ says that Stirner "rehabilitated the individual at a time when the philosophical field was dominated by Hegelian anti-individualism and most reformers in the social field had been led by the misdeeds of bourgeois egotism to stress its opposite" and pointed to "the boldness and scope of his thought." In the seventies an American situationist collective called For Ourselves published a book called _The Right To Be Greedy: Theses On The Practical Necessity Of Demanding Everything _ in which they advocate a "communist egoism" basing themselves on Stirner.

Later in the USA emerged the tendency of post-left anarchy which was influenced profundly by Stirner in aspects such as the critique of ideology. Jason McQuinn says that "when I (and other anti-ideological anarchists) criticize ideology, it is always from a specifically critical, anarchist perspective rooted in both the skeptical, individualist-anarchist philosophy of Max Stirner. Also Bob Black and Feral Faun/Wolfi Landstreicher strongly adhere to Stirnerist egoism. In the hybrid of post-structuralism and Anarchism called post-anarchism Saul Newman has written on Stirner and his similarities to post-structuralism. Insurrectionary anarchism also has an important relationship with Stirner as can be seen in the work of Wolfi Landstreicher and Alfredo Bonanno who has also written on him in works such as _Max Stirner_ and " Max Stirner und der Anarchismus".


The German stirnerist Adolf Brand produced the homosexual periodical _ Der Eigene _ in 1896. This was the first ongoing homosexual publication in the world, and ran until 1931. The name was taken from the writings of Stirner, who had greatly influenced the young Brand, and refers to Stirner's concept of "self-ownership " of the individual. Another early homosexual activist influenced by Stirner was John Henry Mackay . Feminists influenced by Stirner include Dora Marsden who edited the journals _ The Freewoman _ and _The New Freewoman _ and Anarchist Emma Goldman . Stirner also influenced free love and polyamory propagandist Émile Armand in the context of French individualist anarchism of the early twentieth century which is known for "The call of nudist naturism , the strong defense of birth control methods, the idea of "unions of egoists " with the sole justification of sexual practices".


* Individualist anarchism in Europe * Philosophy of Max Stirner * Relationship between Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner


* ^ The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, volume 8, The Macmillan Company and The Free Press, New York 1967. * ^ Bernd A. Laska, _ Otto Gross zwischen Max Stirner und Wilhelm Reich_, In: Raimund Dehmlow and Gottfried Heuer, eds.: 3. Internationaler Otto-Gross-Kongress, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München. Marburg, 2003, pp. 125–62, ISBN 3-936134-06-5 LiteraturWissenschaft.de. * ^ Leopold, David (2006-08-04). "Max Stirner". _Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy _. * ^ Goodway, David. Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow . Liverpool University Press, 2006, p. 99. * ^ A Ready Reference to Philosophy East and West * ^ Anarchism: A Criticjsm and History of the Anarchist Theory * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ John Henry Mackay: Max Stirner – Sein Leben und sein Werk p. 28 * ^ _The Encyclopedia of Philosophy_, volume 8, The Macmillan Company and The Free Press, New York 1967. * ^ Stepelevich, Lawrence (Oct–Dec 1985). " Max Stirner as Hegelian". _Journal of the History of Ideas (subscription required)_. 46 (4): 602. JSTOR 2709548 . * ^ Marshall, Peter (1992). _ Demanding the Impossible _. Harper Collins. p. 221. ISBN 0002178559 . * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ Lawrence L Stepelevich, The revival of Max Stirner * ^ Gide, Charles & Rist, Charles. A History of Economic Doctrines from the Time of the Physiocrats to the Present Day. Harrap 1956, p. 612 * ^ _The Encyclopedia of Philosophy_, volume 8, The Macmillan Company and The Free Press, New York 1967 * ^ Heider, Ulrike. _Anarchism: Left, Right and Green_, San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1994, pp. 95–96 * ^ Stirner, Max. The Ego and Its Own, p. 248 * ^ Moggach, Douglas. The New Hegelians. Cambridge University Press, 2006 p. 194 * ^ Thomas, Paul (1985). _ Karl Marx and the Anarchists_. London: Routledge / Kegan Paul . p. 142. ISBN 0-7102-0685-2 . * ^ _A_ _B_ Nyberg, Svein Olav. "The union of egoists" (PDF). _Non Serviam_. Oslo, Norway: Svein Olav Nyberg. 1: 13–14. OCLC 47758413 . Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 December 2010. Retrieved 1 September 2012 * ^ _A_ _B_ Moggach, Douglas & 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 * ^ Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, The Macmillan company Press, New York, 1967 * ^ See Bernd A. Laska: Nietzsche\'s initial crisis. In: Germanic Notes and Reviews, vol. 33, n. 2, fall/Herbst 2002, pp. 109–33 * ^ George J. Stack, _Lange and Nietzsche_, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1983, p. 12, ISBN 978-3-11-008866-3 * ^ _A_ _B_ "Max Stirner". _ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy _. * ^ Max Stirner, a durable dissident – in a nutshell * ^ Quoted in Read's book, "The Contrary Experience", Faber and Faber, 1963. * ^ See Memoirs of a revolutionary, 1901–1941 by Victor Serge. Publisher Oxford U.P., 1967 * ^ See Bernd A. Laska: _Ein dauerhafter Dissident._ Nürnberg: LSR-Verlag 1996 (online) * ^ See Bernd A. Laska: _Katechon und Anarch._ Nürnberg: LSR-Verlag 1997 (online) * ^ Huneker's book _Egoists, a Book of Supermen_ (1909)contains an essay on Stirner. * ^ See Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays, p. 50. * ^ Wilson, A N (November 1, 2004). "World of books". _The Daily Telegraph_. London. Retrieved May 12, 2010. * ^ _Between Man and Man_ by Martin Buber, Beacon Press, 1955. * ^ From Hegel to Marx by Sidney Hook, London, 1936. * ^ "The long revolution is preparing to write works in the ink of action whose unknown or nameless authors will flock to join Sade, Fourier, Babeuf, Marx, Lacenaire, Stirner, Lautréamont, L’hautier, Vaillant, Henry, Villa, Zapata, Makhno, the Communards, the insurrectionaries of Hamburg, Kiel, Kronstadt, Asturias – all those who have not yet played their last card in a game which we have only just joined: the great gamble whose stake is freedom." Raoul Vaneigem . _The Revolution of Everyday Life _ * ^ David Goodway , _ Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow _, Liverpool University Press, 2006. p. 75. * ^ Henri Arvon, Aux sources de 1'existentialisme Max Stirner (Paris, 1954), p. 14 * ^ Zwischen 18 and 25, pp. 237–38. * ^ "Chapter _Sankt Max_ in _Die deutsche Ideologie_ * ^ I. Berlin, Karl Marx (New York, 1963), 143. * ^ G. Stedman-Jones, 'Introduction' in K. Marx Robert Schellwien, _ Max Stirner and Friedrich Nietzsche_, 1892; H.L. Mencken, _The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche_, 1908; K. Löwith, From Hegel To Nietzsche New York, 1964, p187; R.A. Nicholls, "Beginnings of the Nietzsche Vogue in Germany", in _Modern Philology_, Vol. 56, No. 1, Aug., 1958, pp. 24–37; T. A. Riley, "Anti- Statism in German Literature, as Exemplified by the Work of John Henry Mackay", in _PMLA_, Vol. 62, No. 3, Sep. 1947, pp. 828–43; Seth Taylor, _Left Wing Nietzscheans, The Politics of German Expressionism 1910–1920_, p144, 1990, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York; Gilles Deleuze, _Nietzsche et la Philosophy_, Presses Universitaires de France, 1962; R. C. Solomon Stack believes it is doubtful that Nietzsche read Stirner, but notes "he was familiar with the summary of his theory he found in Lange's history." George J. Stack, _Lange and Nietzsche_, Walter de Gruyter, 1983, p. 276 * ^ Albert Levy, _Stirner and Nietzsche_, Paris, 1904 * ^ Bernd A. Laska: Nietzsche\'s initial crisis. In: Germanic Notes and Reviews, vol. 33, n. 2, fall/Herbst 2002, pp. 109–33 * ^ Eduard von Hartmann, Nietzsches "neue Moral", in _Preussische Jahrbücher_, 67. Jg., Heft 5, Mai 1891, S. 501–521; augmented version with more express reproach of plagiarism in: _Ethische Studien_, Leipzig, Haacke 1898, pp. 34–69 * ^ This author believes that one should be careful in comparing the two men. However, he notes: "It is this intensive nuance of individualism that appeared to point from Nietzsche to Max Stirner, the author of the remarkable work _Der Einzige und sein Eigentum_. Stirner's influence in modern Germany has assumed astonishing proportions, and moves in general parallel with that of Nietzsche. The two thinkers are regarded as exponents of essentially the same philosophy." O. Ewald, "German Philosophy in 1907", in _The Philosophical Review_, Vol. 17, No. 4, Jul., 1908, pp. 400–26 * ^ "The question of whether Nietzsche had read Stirner was the subject of great debate" R.A. Nicholls, "Beginnings of the Nietzsche Vogue in Germany", in _Modern Philology_, Vol. 56, No. 1, Aug., 1958, pp. 29–30 * ^ Levy pointed out in 1904 that the similarities in the writing of the two men appeared superficial. Albert Levy, _Stirner and Nietzsche_, Paris, 1904 * ^ R.A. Nicholls, "Beginnings of the Nietzsche Vogue in Germany", in _Modern Philology_, Vol. 56, No. 1, Aug., 1958, pp. 24–37 * ^ "Stirner, like Nietzsche, who was clearly influenced by him, has been interpreted in many different ways", Saul Newman , _From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power _, Lexington Books, 2001, p. 56; "We do not even know for sure that Nietzsche had read Stirner. Yet, the similarities are too striking to be explained away." R. A. Samek, _The Meta Phenomenon_, p. 70, New York, 1981; Tom Goyens, (referring to Stirner's book The Ego and His Own) "The book influenced Friedrich Nietzsche, and even Marx and Engels devoted some attention to it." T. Goyens, _Beer and Revolution: The German Anarchist Movement In New York City_, p197, Illinois, 2007 * ^ "We have every reason to suppose that Nietzsche had a profound knowledge of the Hegelian movement, from Hegel to Stirner himself. The philosophical learning of an author is not assessed by the number of quotations, nor by the always fanciful and conjectural check lists of libraries, but by the apologetic or polemical directions of his work itself." Gilles Deleuze (translated by Hugh Tomlinson), _Nietzsche and Philosophy _, 1962 (2006 reprint, pp. 153–54) * ^ Guido Giacomo Preparata, "Perishable Money in a Threefold Commonwealth: Rudolf Steiner and the Social Economics of an Anarchist Utopia". _Review of Radical Economics_ 38/4 (Fall 2006). pp. 619–48 * ^ _A_ _B_ _C_ "Only the influence of the German philosopher of egoism, Max Stirner (né Johann Kaspar Schmidt, 1806–1856), as expressed through The Ego and His Own (Der Einzige und sein Eigentum) compared with that of Proudhon. In adopting Stirnerite egoism (1886), Tucker rejected natural rights which had long been considered the foundation of libertarianism. This rejection galvanized the movement into fierce debates, with the natural rights proponents accusing the egoists of destroying libertarianism itself. So bitter was the conflict that a number of natural rights proponents withdrew from the pages of Liberty in protest even though they had hitherto been among its frequent contributors. Thereafter, Liberty championed egoism although its general content did not change significantly."Wendy Mcelroy. "Benjamin Tucker, Individualism, engl. trans. _The Ego and Its Own _ (1907), ed. David Leopold, Cambridge/ New York: CUP 1995 * Stirner, Max: "Recensenten Stirners" (September 1845). In: _Parerga, Kritiken, Repliken_, Bernd A. Laska, ed., Nürnberg: LSR-Verlag, 1986; engl. trans. _Stirner's Critics_ (abridged), see below * Max Stirner, Political Liberalism (1845)


* Max Stirner's 'Der Einzige und sein Eigentum' im Spiegel der zeitgenössischen deutschen Kritik. Eine Textauswahl (1844–1856). Hg. Kurt W. Fleming. Leipzig: Verlag Max-Stirner-Archiv 2001 (Stirneriana) * Arena, Leonardo V., Note ai margini del nulla, ebook, 2013. * Arvon, Henri, Aux Sources de l'existentialisme, Paris: P.U.F. 1954 * Essbach, Wolfgang, Gegenzüge. Der Materialismus des Selbst. Eine Studie über die Kontroverse zwischen Max Stirner und Karl Marx. Frankfurt: Materialis 1982 * Helms, Hans G, Die Ideologie der anonymen Gesellschaft. Max Stirner 'Einziger' und der Fortschritt des demokratischen Selbstbewusstseins vom Vormärz bis zur Bundesrepublik, Köln: Du Mont Schauberg, 1966 * Koch, Andrew M., "Max Stirner: The Last Hegelian or the First Poststructuralist". In: Anarchist Studies, vol. 5 (1997) pp. 95–108 * Laska, Bernd A., Ein dauerhafter Dissident. Eine Wirkungsgeschichte des Einzigen, Nürnberg: LSR-Verlag 1996 (TOC, index) * Laska, Bernd A., Ein heimlicher Hit. Editionsgeschichte des "Einzigen". Nürnberg: LSR-Verlag 1994 (abstract) * Marshall, Peter H. "Max Stirner" in "Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism "(London: HarperCollins, 1992). * Moggach, Douglas Cato Institute . pp. 493–94. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4 . LCCN 2008009151 . OCLC 750831024 . doi :10.4135/9781412965811.n300 . * Di Mascio, Carlo, Stirner Giuspositivista. Rileggendo l'Unico e la sua proprietà, 2 ed., Edizioni Del Faro, Trento, 2015, p. 253, ISBN 978-88-6537-378-1


* Works written by or about Max Stirner at Wikisource * Quotations related to Max Stirner at Wikiquote * Media related to Max Stirner at Wikimedia Commons


* "Max Stirner". _ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy _. ,