Max Stirner challenged the foundational principles of modern society, like morality, religion, and state authority. This also meant challenging the way philosophers dealt with the many economic changes that were happening.
This essay takes a deep-dive into how an egoist would view economic relations and what an egoist would prioritize within economic relations. Essentially, the question being asked here is: what would be an egoist approach to the economic relations within capitalism? And this is a difficult question to answer, because egoism isn’t really about that. However, I will try to answer it as best I can by looking at what the historical economic conditions of Stirner’s lifetime were, then how Marx - as a representative of philosophy around that time - responded to the changing economic conditions, and…well…why it is all kinda nothing to Stirner.
So basically, we are going to look into how Stirner's egoism interprets economic conditions and systems, and then try to offer a unique approach to the complex relations involved in maintaining some kind of fundamental value system which allows for human coexistence in an economic sense.
Economic Conditions during Stirner’s Lifetime
To introduce egoism into the mix here, it might prove useful to talk about the economic relations Max Stirner was experiencing during his lifetime.
Max Stirner lived during a period of profound economic and social transformation. The first half of the 19th century was characterized by the rapid industrialization and urbanization that swept across Europe, fundamentally altering the fabric of society. This era was marked by both progress and turmoil, which obviously significantly influenced the philosophical debates of the time, including those of Stirner.
The Industrial Revolution and Economic Change
The Industrial Revolution, which began in the late 18th century and continued into the 19th century, was a driving force behind the economic conditions of Stirner’s time. The revolution brought about significant technological advancements, including the steam engine, mechanized textile production, and improved iron-making processes. These innovations led to increased production and efficiency, urbanization and changes in labor.
Social and Economic Inequalities
The economic transformations brought by the Industrial Revolution exacerbated social and economic inequalities and really pushed issues like wealth disparities, shitty working conditions and, subsequently, shitty living conditions for many, many people.
Political and Social Movements
The economic conditions of the time also gave rise to various political and social movements. Workers began organizing to demand better wages, shorter working hours, and improved working conditions. In Britain, the Chartist movement sought political reforms to extend voting rights to working-class men. And economic hardship and social discontent fueled uprisings across Europe. The Revolutions of 1848, for instance, were driven by demands for political liberalization, national self-determination, and social reform.
Emergence of New Economic Theories
The economic upheavals of the 19th century spurred the development of various new economic theories and ideologies.
In response to the inequalities of capitalism, socialist and communist ideologies gained traction. Figures like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels critiqued capitalist exploitation and proposed revolutionary changes to establish a classless society.
If you would like to learn more about economics as a social science, please check out my book suggestions:
Marx and Engels’ Critique of Capitalism
Amidst the economic and social upheavals of the 19th century, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels developed a comprehensive critique of capitalism and articulated a vision for a socialist society.
Marx observed that industrial capitalism, driven by the Industrial Revolution, intensified economic inequalities and exploitation. He argued that capitalism inherently produced class divisions between the bourgeoisie (owners of capital) and the proletariat (working class). The bourgeoisie, according to Marx, extracted surplus value from the labor of the proletariat, leading to wealth accumulation for the few at the expense of the many.
Marx’s theory of historical materialism posited that the economic base (the mode of production and class relations) shapes the superstructure (laws, politics, ideology) of society. He viewed history as a series of class struggles, culminating in revolutionary change. Marx predicted that the inherent contradictions of capitalism—such as overproduction, economic crises, and the concentration of wealth—would lead to a proletarian revolution.
Marx envisioned a socialist society where the means of production are collectively owned and controlled by the proletariat. He argued that this would eliminate the exploitation inherent in capitalism and pave the way for a classless society (communism). In The Communist Manifesto (1848) co-authored with Friedrich Engels, Marx called for workers of the world to unite, asserting their political power to overthrow bourgeois rule and establish a socialist system.
Stirner’s Critique of All The-Isms
Well…Stirner didn’t really think socialism or capitalism were a thing. Stirner viewed them both as systems which subjugate his ego to abstract ideals—whether they be private property or collective ownership—their point is to diminish personal autonomy. He criticized socialist movements for merely replacing one form of coercion (capitalist exploitation) with another (collective authority).
But Stirner did not have any good solutions either. And that is why he get’s a lot of shit from people still…to this day.
But let me get a little more into that. Because I really think people just don’t get it or fear it or want to hold on to some spook to rationalize something they don’t want to accept about themselves. In fact…my favorite case of that is the case of Saint Max.
Saint Max
Saint Max is a part of The German Ideology dedicated to Max Stirner.
The entire chapter is basically one giant hissy fit which includes a whole lot of ad hominem attacks against Stirner. They refer to Max Stirner mockingly as Saint Max, and the tone is like listening to your annoying ex who hates you but does not want to let you leave.
The whole book is written in a bad, jolting, and stale style, covered with dust and cobwebs, dead, atrophied, leprous, a book for quacks and fanatics, it is a cause of shame and nausea even to come near it.
- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology
They focus on Stirner's egoism and its implications for revolutionary theory and practice. So, they look at Stirner’s ideas on property, morality, and the state within this context.
Marx critiques Stirner's philosophical thought as fundamentally flawed in addressing the systemic nature of economic exploitation. For Marx, the focus on individual autonomy overlooks the collective struggle inherent in class dynamics.
On our part, we must say to the 'egoist' that in his society he would certainly never come into possession of property. Why? Because his property would be occupied by someone stronger, who in turn would find himself in the same position as Stirner.
- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology
He also can’t seem to grasp Stirner's emphasis on the individual's subjective experience which is seen by Marx as an abstraction that fails to address concrete material conditions.
Another one of his critiques is Stirner’s views of economic systems as spooks which exist to subjugate individuals, Marx sees them as dynamic processes that shape human history. Which, no offense buddy, but…why can’t they be both?
Stirner has given an answer, both in the sense of a commentary and of a repetition, to the saying that man is a 'political animal', and has tried to win a fresh importance for the 'egoist'. But he lacks the sense of man's social essence, and hence also of the 'egoist's' own general interest.
- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology
He also thinks that Stirner's egoism fails to address what he called systemic alienation, which he describes as a pervasive and institutionalized estrangement individuals feel from their labor, products, and social roles within a societal system. He asserts that egoism offers a superficial solution by encouraging individuals to reclaim personal autonomy without changing the underlying economic structures that cause alienation.
Stirner turns with particular predilection to the practical, egoistical questions of daily life. In practice, it will be found that the theoretical standpoint of egoism is a justification for the existing capitalist system and for an attempt to cheat oneself out of the present era, which has as its task the practical realization of man’s theoretical nature.
- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology
Stirner & Economic Relations
To understand the validity of an egoist perspective on economic systems, let me explain the major differences between Marx and Stirner. Even though they are both critical of existing societal structures, they obviously diverge significantly in their foundational premises.
Stirner's philosophy centers on his ego and his ownness or individual power, not on collective struggle or any ideals for revolution. For Stirner, societal constructs, including economic systems, are tools of domination that subjugate the individual. Simple enough right? So what we have here is a anti-idealist and anti-materialist sort of borderline situation. It offers an alternative to idealist and materialist notions by sort of connecting them.
I explained that before in another essay, which you can find in the chapter Dialectics & The Nature of Reality & Knowledge here:
Marx focuses on the collective and the structural dynamics of society, and he views economic systems as the base upon which the social, political, and ideological superstructure is built. But…let me say some shit about that:
Maybe I’m dumb but aren’t the fundamental driving units of said society -so like workers and the bourgeoise still PEOPLE? Like…individuals? And like…don’t they kinda need to like…think? And…aren’t the things they think influenced by like…various influences? And like…doesn’t that mean that…each singular unit is influenced by concepts and ideals that are being planted in their messed up, class-struggling minds, and like…doesn’t that mean that egoism, or shedding spooks and allowing oneself to follow desire is like, actually a really good idea?
Stirner criticizes socialism for replacing one form of domination (capitalist exploitation) with another—collective authority. For Stirner, any system that subordinates the individual to a collective entity undermines personal freedom and self-determination and that dissatisfaction and self-denial will ultimately lead to the perpetuation of the same bullshit.
Egoism & Money
Ok…so let’s get into the heart of it all. To exemplify an egoist illumination of economic systems, let’s just use the simplest but also somehow most complex one.
M O N E Y
In Stirner's framework, money can be seen as one of the many societal constructs that wield power over individuals. It’s like something that got blown waaaaaay out of proportion. Money, in its conventional sense, is imbued with abstract value. It dictates relationships and social dynamics. So for Stirner it’s a yucky spooky thing that confuses people and controls them psychologically.
In Stirner's philosophical framework, money is some neutral medium of exchange but a potent symbol of societal power dynamics and psychological control. You want to talk about alienation, Marxy boy? This shit alienates workers. This is the thing that actually alienates and controls people. Their ‘labor’! That’s the biggest spook of all. The confusion created by external value systems is what ultimately makes people complacent. It alienates them from their value as an ego. It reduces them to something of use to some external entity. THAT IS ALIENATION.
Money has no tangible worth. It is an exaggerated human idealistic delusion that pretends nature isn’t going to do its thing either way. You can take it. Use it. Steal it. Make it. Ignore it (think Dionyses). You are in control of the value you give to it. And if you want it, then get it. But don’t be surprised when all the laborers reclaim their autonomy and rush your ass.
So through this lens, one could say that money pretends that it dictates not only economic transactions but also interpersonal relationships and social hierarchies. And the reason why it is so successful with this delusion is precisely BECAUSE we are ignoring the individual’s psychic needs.
So, let’s talk about that.
In Deleuzian terms, money can be understood through the lens of Max Stirner's critique as a "deterritorializing" force within societal structures. Money, in its conventional form, operates as a signifier of value and exchange that detaches individuals from their immediate desires and personal interests, thereby redirecting their focus towards abstract economic goals and social norms.
Deleuze and Guattari's concept of deterritorialization describes the process by which social institutions, like money, impose abstract codes and standards that override individual desires and potentials. Money deterritorializes individuals from their immediate environments and personal aspirations by embedding them within a broader economic system governed by market forces and societal expectations.
Moreover, Deleuze's notion of "control societies" resonates with the view of money as a mechanism of control and psychological manipulation. In these societies, individuals are governed not by overt coercion but by internalized norms and aspirations tied to economic success and social status, perpetuating a cycle of conformity and alienation from one's authentic desires.
Thus, within a Deleuzian analysis, an egoist critique of money underscores how economic systems deterritorialize and reterritorialize individuals' subjectivities, shaping their identities and desires in accordance with capitalist imperatives. Money becomes a focal point through which social structures exert control over personal autonomy, blurring the line between genuine self-expression and conformist behavior dictated by economic incentives.
An Egoist Approach to Economics
So let’s end this with some ideas of how else we can approach economic relations, systems, institutions and units of imaginary value. And I think the best way to do this would be to start from the individual.
So…start simple: What am I?
From an egoist standpoint, the ideal economic relations are those that allow egos to exist in a state of perpetual ownness. Meaning…you’re here. You are as much allowed to take up space as anyone else. These hierarchies are imaginary. They don’t exist. If you steal Uncle Bob’s 5 ounces of cocaine, it no longer belongs to him. In fact, it never did. It belongs to no one. And your use or consumption of it does not make it yours either.
So…what are you? You are nothing, really. You are ownness. Everything after that is up to you.
So, subsequently you will ask yourself: What do I want?
Yeah, this one is difficult. Mostly because we are kind of stuck in a perpetual state of Stockholm Syndrome and can’t really tell the forest for the trees, but we know the basics. So let’s go from there, in baby steps. You stole Uncle Bob’s snow so…now what? Do you want to use it or share it with someone? Sell it? Give it to someone who needs it more? I mean…it’s up to you.
But you should consider… “What if they catch me for theft or dealing or whatever and I end up in jail?”
Same goes for any institution that imposes regulations, whether a state or a market monopoly.
So…an egoist perspective of economics means looking at the psychosocial implications of a controlled mind. What are the mechanisms of control? How much agency is the individual capable of reclaiming? What does it mean to reclaim power, including labor power, or even the power to participate in trade? How flexible are economic arrangements?
Embracing ownness in economic systems would look something like this:
Economic relations would prioritize agency and autonomy. It’s kinda like how nature works without people in it. Each person acts based on their own interests, and transactions can be beneficial. But there is no kind of delusion of some guarantee that it will be okay and you won’t be fucked over.
Also let’s get real about what property rights really are. That would definitely be an egoist thing to do. Property rights exist because someone was like ‘I am too tired to engage in natural interpersonal relations so I’ll just get me an army and make sure I come out on top.’ The sense of entitlement involved in wanting the whole world to validate your delusions is pretty boss. In any case…this is the world we live in. So, the egoist would say that property is obviously a construct and ownership is fluid.
Also, value wouldn’t be assigned based on market dynamics and societal norms. Egoism means deconstructing and literally ignoring these arbitrary assignments of value if they don’t serve you.
Egoism also involves assessing risks and making choices that align with one's own interests, even if they go against societal norms. This requires a deeper understanding of the consequences of one's actions. You know…karma.
So, for those of you who will get your panties in a bunch over not having any solid solutions for anything, I will indulge you. But Stirner would never have suggested any of these, keep that in mind:
Implementing egoist principles in economic relations would look something like 1) decentralizing networks and moving toward peer-to-peer exchanges, maybe through stuff like blockchain technology, 2) collaborative platforms or something like sharing economies, 3) education set on empowerment from social norms and fostering of individuality for the sake of agency-building, 4) and in terms of legal and social frameworks…well…I guess we would just kind of need to believe in the human capacity for reason and empathy after despookification and go from there. Because otherwise this would just be Ayn Rand’s dream world, wouldn’t it? Conflict mediation and punishment does not have to be a centralized process.
The Significance of Subjectivity
So let’s sum up again what Marx said about how economic conditions, systems and relations affect workers and what that means for society.
Marx said, that economic conditions form the base (infrastructure) of society, which influences all other aspects of society, including its culture, institutions, political power structures, and legal systems (superstructure); and that changes in the economic base lead to changes in the superstructure.
So where Marx sees economic conditions, Stirner sees spooks - i.e. social constructs which have a massive impact on the individuals’s subjectivity.
Marx also said that society is divided into classes based on their relationship to the means of production; and that class struggle between these groups is inevitable and is the driving force behind social and political change.
This also doesn’t really negate or deviate from Stirner’s perspective. Again, subjectivity is seen as the foundation of any and all social developments - it just begins at a different point.
Then Marx said that workers in a capitalist system are alienated from the products of their labor, the labor process, their own human potential, and from each other; and that this alienation is a result of being treated as commodities and losing control over their work and its outcomes.
Here Stirner would say: Okay…so like, subjectivity is influenced?
All of this is happening, according to Marx, because capitalism operates on the exploitation of labor and this exploitation is inherent in the wage-labor relationship.
And I imagine here Stirner would say: So…you mean that the exploitation of labor would affect someone’s…subjectivity?
In terms of human interaction and relationships Marx claims that people relate to each other and to society through the exchange of commodities, which obscures the true nature of economic relations and the exploitation involved.
And he said that, eventually, the contradictions and crises of capitalism, driven by exploitation and class struggle, will eventually lead to its downfall, because the proletariat will become aware of their exploitation (class consciousness) and rise up in a revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie.
Again, here the argument still is…SUBJECTIVITY is influenced by external factors which then lead to responses to that process of influence.
It’s almost like, Marx is just ignoring that subjectivity is a thing.
And I understand that material conditions have a huge impact on people’s relationship to their own labor. That is all true. But before that, they lose their relationship to their ownness. They lose agency. They lose their ability to see things clearly. And this is where Stirner begins his inquiry.
Conclusion
So…Max Stirner's egoism provides a radical critique of conventional thought in relation to economics. It challenges the power dynamics and abstractions that underpin economies. By viewing money and economic systems through an egoist lens, one can maybe even go so far as to envision a model of economic interaction that prioritizes autonomy, the development of agency and some kind of small scale voluntary cooperation. But, again, that is not what Stirner did.
But what he did do was to compel us to rethink our relationships and interactions within spookland. And thereby he broke all the other theories mentioned here down to their most fundamental aspect and central problem: There is no economy without the individual. There aren’t even ideals or a material reality of consequence without the individual.
So why the hell wouldn’t you start there?
I probably fucked myself over by reading the whole thing at this time, needing to wake up early tomorrow....Really awesome essay, just couldn't not finish it. Gave me a lot to think about, I also really liked your writing style on this one. Thanks a lot!