The “anarchy” of egoism: Max Stirner’s radical individualism

No gods, no masters — no rights, no duties, nothing?

Photo by Patrick Bevan

So, this is going to be a tad more philosophical and academic than usual. I hope you don’t mind.

I recently re-read — I was too stupid the first time round — Max Stirner’s seminal work “The Ego and His Own” (1844) and, I must say, it left me both fascinated and somewhat unsettled. Stirner, in his characteristically uncompromising style, launches a full-frontal assault on the very notion of rights, tearing down the façade of law and justice to reveal the naked power struggle beneath (the pavement). It’s a perspective that resonates with my own anarchist leanings, even as it challenges some of my cherished beliefs about empathy and collective action.

Let’s discuss!

The tyranny of “justice”

At the heart of Stirner’s critique is the idea that all rights are essentially “foreign law” imposed on the individual by external authorities. Whether that authority is found in God, the state, society, or “the People” makes no discernible difference — any right that does not originate from one’s own “might” as an individual ego is, to Stirner, a form of slavery and subjugation.

Stirner mocks the very idea of seeking justice in a court of law. When we appeal to a judge, he argues, we are not seeking our own right, but “the right of the sultan, the pope, or the popular will.” We are asking to be made “in the right” by someone else, according to their rules and statutes. But what if those rules are contrary to our own interests and desires? What if they are designed to uphold an oppressive system?

In the philosopher’s own words:

“We seek for right, and turn to the court for that purpose. To what? To a royal, a papal, a popular court, etc. Can a sultanic court declare another right than that which the sultan has ordained to be right? Can it make me out in the right if I seek for a right that does not agree with the sultan’s law? Can it, for instance, concede to me high treason as a right, since it is assuredly not a right according to the sultan’s mind? Can it as a court of censorship allow me the free utterance of opinion as a right, since the sultan will hear nothing of this my right?”

It’s a disturbing thought, isn’t it? How much of what we consider “justice” is really just the codified will of those in power? How often do we surrender our own autonomy and self-determination in exchange for the dubious protection of law? Justice is not self-determined, it is imposed. It is no manifestation of collective will, but rather one of higher interests.

Equal rights as an illusion

Stirner is particularly scathing in his criticism of the notion of “equal rights.” He argues that the only real basis for equal rights would be equal might. A king’s son has a “right” to the throne because he has the power to secure it and make others recognize it. The “right” of parents over children or masters over slaves is simply a matter of the difference in power between them.

The idea that we can somehow transcend these power imbalances through moral or legal fictions is, for Stirner, a dangerous delusion. The “rights of man” proclaimed by revolutionaries and reformers are just a new form of religious superstition, a belief in ghostly “spooks,” as Stirner famously calls them, that haunt the mind and keep us subservient.

As an anarchist (or anarcho-communist; occasionally, anarcho-primitivist), I find this critique of rights and equality… challenging. Like many others, I want to believe in the possibility of a world where all people are treated with equal dignity and respect, where the strong do not oppress the weak. But Stirner forces me to confront the uncomfortable question: is this just another “spook,” another unattainable ideal that distracts us from the harsh, never-changing realities of power?

The sovereignty of the ego

For Stirner, the only escape from this trap is to embrace the sovereignty of the individual ego. He urges us to reject all external authorities and moral constraints, to assert our own might as the sole basis for our “right.” If we have the power to take something, he argues, then we have the right to it. Anything else is just a form of self-imposed servitude.

Yes, Stirner’s world is not a pleasant one.

His is a radically nihilistic view, one that seems to reject all social bonds and responsibilities. Stirner even goes so far as to dismiss the “sacredness” of human life itself, arguing that the strong have always had the “right” to kill the weak and that the only thing stopping them is the fear of consequences.

I find this extreme individualism both bracing and troubling. On the one hand, I sympathize with Stirner’s desire to break free from the chains of moral and legal obligation, to assert the primacy of the individual will. I really do. There is a certain exhilarating freedom in the idea of the sovereign ego, beholden to nothing and no one. No responsibilities, no duties, no dying for the motherland, no family obligations, no “being useful to society” by working mindless 9-to-5 jobs, nothing but pure, unaltered liberty in the truest sense.

Yet at the same time, I cannot embrace Stirner’s rejection of empathy and solidarity. I still believe that we have a responsibility to care for and support one another, that our individual flourishing is deeply and eternally bound up with the flourishing of our communities, no matter how diminished and destructed by the God that is capitalism. The “war of all against all,” as Stirner would have it, may be the true state of things, but I refuse to accept it as an ideal.

Each of us has their own self-imposed ideals and responsibilities. I will not die for the abstract notion of a country or religion, but I will wage war against anyone who threatens people I care for. My flag is pure black not because I stand for nothing, but because I stand for people.

Collective action, people, and responsibility after all

And this is where I part ways with Stirner’s philosophy. While I agree with his critique of rights and bourgeois justice as a form of alienated power, I do not think the solution is a retreat into radical egoism. We are social creatures, after all, and our sense of self is shaped by our relationships and interactions with others.

Moreover, the problems we face as a species — from capitalist exploitation to ecological collapse — are far too vast and systemic to be addressed through individual action alone. We need collective movements, solidarity, radicalism, and mutual aid to have any hope of creating a better world.

This is why, despite my misgivings, I still believe in the importance of collective rights and responsibilities. Not as a set of immutable moral laws handed down from above, but as a framework for negotiating our shared existence on this small planet in the sheer blackness of an eternal void we know nothing about. A way of balancing the needs and desires of the individual with the greater good of the community — not in subservience but in solidarity.

Empathy as a revolutionary force

Central to this framework, in my view, is the cultivation of empathy. The ability to put ourselves in the shoes of others, to understand and feel their joys and sorrows as if they were our own. It is a quality that Stirner’s philosophy sorely lacks, and one that I believe is essential to any project of human liberation.

Empathy is what allows us to see the humanity in others, even those who are different from us or who oppose our interests. It is what motivates us to stand up against injustice and oppression, even when we are not directly affected. And it is what gives us the strength to build bonds of mutual care and support, to create communities of resistance and resilience.

In this sense, I would argue that empathy is not just a moral imperative, but a revolutionary force. It is the glue that holds our movements together, the spark that ignites our collective imagination. Without it, we are left with nothing but the cold calculus of self-interest, the bleak landscape of Stirner’s never-ending battle royale.

Toward a new conception of rights

So where does this leave us, then? With the realization, perhaps, that the language of rights is flawed and incomplete, but not entirely useless. That we need a new conception of rights, one that is grounded in the realities of power and struggle, but also animated by a spirit of empathy and class solidarity.

This is the challenge that Stirner’s critique poses to us as anarchists, as communists, as anyone hoping for a better world, as human beings. To imagine a world beyond the narrow confines of bourgeois top-down legalism and moralism, but also beyond the bleak nihilism of pure egoism. A world where the sovereignty of the individual is balanced with the needs of the community, where freedom is not just the absence of constraint but the presence of meaningful connection and purpose.

It will not be an easy task, to be sure. The forces arrayed against true liberty are formidable, the temptations of power and domination ever-present. But as long as we hold fast to the values of empathy and solidarity, as long as we continue to struggle and dream together, I believe we can find a way forward, always.

In the end, perhaps the true “right” is simply the right to create our own values, to shape our own destinies in concert with those around us. Not a right granted by any external authority, but one that we seize and make real through our own collective might. It is a daunting prospect, but also an exhilarating one. For in the struggle to create a new world, we also create ourselves — as individuals, as communities, as a species. And that, in itself, is a kind of liberation.

Thank you for reading. I hope this wasn’t too pretentious and cringe.

Antonio Melonio

You can also support my pursuit of freedom and self-determination on Patreon or leave a tip on PayPal. Thank you.