r/DebateCommunism • u/Even-Reindeer-3624 • 16d ago
🍵 Discussion Any thoughts on "egoism"?
For those who are familiar with the works of Johan Kaspar Schmidt (aka Max Stirner), I'd like to learn the differences between his philosophy and Marx's. Or maybe, I guess I'd like to hear a critique of his work from a Marxist perspective. I guess sometimes it's easier to find the right answer than the right question, so please bear with me here.
I may or may not answer to your comments, but I will likely read most if not all comments posted, but I'd like to open the floor for all of you guys. Honestly, I'm not very well versed on either, but I know both were "post Hegel" philosophers and both somewhat of the same "lineage" if that makes any sense at all. The best I can gather is both used a dialectical approach, Marx was more associated with the materialist perspective and I believe "Stirner" may have leaned a little more towards the idealistic?
Thank you guys much and have a great day!
2
u/TerraValentine 13d ago
reading "saint max" from the german ideology now, which is an extensive criticism of stirner. ill come back to this when im finished but for now ill say marx is not a fan, to the point of regularly mocking stirner as "sancho panza" for taking at face value bourgeois illusions about themselves etc, & you are right about their different approaches and the background
5
u/A_Philosophical_Cat 16d ago
Stirner didn't promote dialectics. This is commonly misunderstood about him, since "The Unique and Its Property" features them frequently, however, it's important to recognize that significant chunks of TUaIP are satirical: his primary audience was a bunch his drinking buddies who were fellow students of Hegel, including notably including Engels. The humor in his work has been largely lost on Anglosphere readers, because for a long time the only translation available was "The Ego and Its own" by Steven T. Byington, which utterly failed to translate the humor, in some places leaving it out entirely. It is unclear whether this was an editorial choice, or if it simply went over the translator's head. For this reason, I recommend the Wolfi Landstriecher translation, entitled "The Unique and Its Property", which is far more accurate, or reading it in the original German if feasible.
Stirner's philosophy (though he didn't like that description), "egoism", is basically an explanation of why people do things. Stirner was a staunch believer in free will: people do things because they choose to do them. But that raises the question of why so many people act in direct opposition to their own interests. Stirner's proposed answer was the concept of the "fixed idea", which is an idea that someone has, but chooses to believe has power over them, leading them to choose to sacrifice their own interests in support of the idea. He lists a lot of these, notably God, The State, and "Man-In-General", criticizing Monarchists, Liberals, and early Socialists/Communists/"Humanists" respectively.
He describes most people as "unconscious egoists", meaning that they unknowingly engage in this world of fixed ideas, subconsciously choosing fixed ideas to believe in, and not knowing that the ideas themselves are actually powerless. His ethical framework (in the most academic sense, "what ought one do") is focused on becoming a "conscious egoist", consciously choosing to acquire ideas, beliefs, etc., and recognizing that they are your property, to possess, change, or dispose of at your own fancy.
This has lead him to being labeled an Anarchist in many circles, because pretty much all power structures are based on fixed ideas. But it is important to recognize that Stirner himself didn't really care to explore the political ramifications of following his belief system, merely arguing that people should consciously choose to engage in whatever systems they like, being aware that doing so is a choice.
There are revolutionary undertones to that, of course, in that, as he argued, there is little reason for workers who are paid a pittance compared to the value they produce not to overthrow their bosses. He argues the reason revolutions don't happen more is that people complacently believe in the fixed ideas that justify their own oppression.