Max Stirner’s Critique of the Left
Leftist Socialism, Left Anarchism & Post-Left Anarchism
What if I told you that even the most radical revolutionaries are still trapped? Not by chains or prisons, but by their own beliefs. Their loyalty to abstractions keeps them in invisible bondage. At least this is what 19th century philosopher Max Stirner said, when he was critiquing his contemporaries and their great ideas for better coexistence.
Watch the video here:
Today, we are looking into Stirner’s critique of leftism and leftist anarchism, straight from his work, The Ego and Its Own.
First…quickly, let’s remind the ones who are new here of who Max Stirner is and what his involvement is in the revolutionary political narrative:
So…Max Stirner was a philosopher and an active participant in the intellectual and revolutionary scene of his time. He engaged with the radical movements of 19th-century Europe. He was also a former member of the Young Hegelians. You know…the intellectuals who had studied under Hegel and were developing their own concepts and theories around revolutionary thought. Basically…Stirner's critique of Hegelian philosophy and political ideologies like socialism positioned him as a provocative figure within the leftist revolutionary circles even though is ideas, which emphasized individual autonomy and egoism, were in direct contrast to the collective notions of liberation espoused by figures like Karl Marx. Stirner rejected the notion of any higher moral or political authority, which made his work appealing to those who sought to break free from conventional structures. However, other aspects of his thought put him at odds with the more collectivist elements of the revolutionary movement.
Basically, Stirner believed that individual self-interest, and therefore personal liberation, was necessary for real change. However, to do that this idea of change had to be ignored, and the fundamental aspects of any and all personal aspirations had to be deconstructed. Because otherwise - if the authenticity was lacking - it just wasn’t going to work.
So Stirner’s focus wasn’t to change material conditions, nor was it a change of thought and belief structures. For Stirner, everything started with the individual.
So…let’s look at this more closely.
Why Did Stirner Critique the Left?
Max Stirner didn’t just critique authority in the conventional sense. His critique wasn’t merely aimed at the state, religion, or traditional power structures. He also turned his gaze on the very movements that sought to overthrow them: the left. Now, you might wonder: why target the left? Aren’t they the ones advocating for freedom, equality, and a society without rulers? Stirner’s answer is simple: the left, even in its more radical forms, is just another form of ideological control. And well…it often manages to make people believe otherwise, which is what makes it so dangerous.
"But the liberty of the people is not my liberty! The liberty of the people is, as little as the State itself, an ego; it is the liberty of a spook, a ghost."
In The Ego and Its Own, Stirner argues that leftist ideologies claim to free the individual but end up imposing a new form of “spook.” And as we know, for Stirner, a “spook” isn’t a ghost or supernatural being; it’s an idea or abstraction that possesses the mind, and commands loyalty and obedience as though it were real.
“The higher essence, the spirit, that walks in everything, is at the same time bound to nothing, and only – 'appears' in it.
Ghosts in every corner!”
These “spooks”, which are ideas like “justice,” “the people,” “freedom,” and “equality”, are revered as higher values, and yet they are nothing but constructs that shape the collective consciousness, unless they come from a place of true desire and authenticity.
“Man, your head is haunted; you have wheels in your head. You imagine great things, and depict to yourself a whole world of gods that has an existence for you, a spirit-realm to which you suppose yourself to be called, an ideal that beckons to you.”
The left, in its desire to create a new, more just world, often demands a sacrifice of individuality. Instead of simply overturning the existing order, it replaces the old ideals with new ones—ideals that, for Stirner, are just as oppressive.
“What is not supposed to be my concern [Sache] ! First and foremost, the good cause [Sache], then God’s cause, the cause of mankind, of truth, of freedom, of humanity, of justice; further, the cause of my people, my prince, my fatherland; finally, even the cause of Mind, and a thousand other causes. Only my cause is never to be my concern. “Shame on the egoist who thinks only of himself!”
In this way, leftist movements can become just as authoritarian as the structures they seek to abolish, because they impose their own moral codes on individuals.
Stirner doesn’t deny the need for change - he’s deeply interested in revolution - but he insists that true change must begin with the individual, not with an abstract, collective ideal.
“You think at least the “good cause” must be my concern? What’s good, what’s bad? Why, I myself am my concern, and I am neither good nor bad. Neither has meaning for me.”
To Stirner, the left’s focus on the collective is the real issue. It elevates the group, the cause, or the collective good above the unique individual. So, then the person is sacrificed for the sake of an ideal—whether that ideal is "the people," "the state," or "revolution."
So, the left’s obsession with abstract ideals, like “social justice” or “equality,” means they often forget the core issue: individual autonomy.
“Hitherto men have always striven to find out a fellowship in which their inequalities in other respects should become 'nonessential'; they strove for equalization, consequently for equality, and wanted to come all under one hat, which means nothing less than that they were seeking for one lord, one tie, one faith.”
Stirner’s critique, then, is aimed not just at the structures of power, but at the very way in which we allow abstract ideas to govern us.
“The Revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on “institutions.” It is not a fight against the established, since, if it prospers, the established collapses of itself; it is only a working forth of me out of the established. If I leave the established, it is dead and passes into decay. Now, as my object is not the overthrow of an established order but my elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not a political or social but (as directed toward myself and my ownness alone) an egoistic purpose and deed.”
This means that the real issue here is authenticity. Stirner believes that authentic desire is the fundamental condition for any real change. But if you are caught in an ideal that imposes a kind of you that isn’t authentically you, you will either be forced to conform to or rebel against this demand. Which will ultimately turn you sour in a way. It will create a tension between, what Lacan would call, your Real and the Symbolic Order.
And this just isn’t going to work.
Leftism
Stirner has called Leftism a New Religion. This might sound strange at first, but it’s a crucial part of Stirner’s argument. As you know by now, Stirner believed that leftist movements don’t just fight to dismantle existing power structures. They create a new system of beliefs and idols that, rather than freeing the individual, reintroduce a different kind of enslavement.
In his work he uses the "idea of humanity" to illustrate this point. For Stirner, the concept of humanity, much like the state, is a spook—a constructed ideal that binds individuals to something greater than themselves, a collective identity that demands sacrifice and submission. Leftist ideologies, by elevating such abstract ideals as equality or social justice to a moral imperative, unknowingly impose new forms of obligation on the individual. In Stirner's view, these movements often replace one kind of oppression with another, where instead of a king or a ruler, the individual now answers to the "greater good" of the collective, surrendering their autonomy to a new set of norms and expectations.
“Under religion and politics man finds himself at the stand-point of should: he should become this and that, should be so and so. With this postulate, this commandment, every one steps not only in front of another but also in front of himself. Those critics say: You should be a whole, free man. Thus they too stand in the temptation to proclaim a new religion, to set up a new absolute, an ideal – namely, freedom. Men should be free. Then there might even arise missionaries of freedom , as Christianity, in the conviction that all were properly destined to become Christians, sent out missionaries of the faith. Freedom would then (as have hitherto faith as Church, morality as state) constitute itself as a new community and carry on a like “propaganda” therefrom. Certainly no objection can be raised against a getting together; but so much the more must one oppose every renewal of the old care for us, of culture directed toward an end – in short, the principle of making something out of us, no matter whether Christians, subjects, or freemen and men.”
So humanity becomes the new God.
Stirner argues that leftism, despite its claims to oppose hierarchy and authority, often elevates abstract ideas to the status of an unquestionable truth, much like religion does. Just like religious dogma, leftist ideologies demand faith and allegiance to higher ideals. But these ideals, whether it's "equality," "justice," or "revolution", are not real. They don’t exist outside of our minds, yet they command our devotion as though they were sacred truths.
“History seeks for Man: but he is I, you, we. Sought as a mysterious essence, as the divine, first as God, then as Man (humanity, humaneness, and mankind), he is found as the individual, the finite, the unique one.
I am owner of humanity, am humanity, and do nothing for the good of another humanity. Fool, you who are a unique humanity, that you make a merit of wanting to live for another than you are.”
In this sense, Stirner sees leftist ideologies as a form of religious faith. Just as religion often demands submission to abstract concepts like God or the soul, leftism demands submission to concepts like "the people," "justice," or "revolution."
“So every opinion must be abolished or made impersonal. The person is entitled to no opinion, but, as self-will was transferred to the state, property to society, so opinion too must be transferred to something general, ‘Man,’ and thereby become a general human opinion.”
These abstract ideals are worshiped, and the individual is expected to subjugate themselves for the sake of these ideals. And maybe this sounds dramatic but think about it. Leftism has a history of trying to control narratives to fit some collective ideal.
“To the Socialists welfare is still the supreme aim, as free rivalry was the approved thing to the political liberals; now welfare is free too, and we are free to achieve welfare, just as he who wanted to enter into rivalry (competition) was free to do so.”
A historical example of this can be found in the Soviet Union, particularly during the reign of Joseph Stalin. The Bolshevik Revolution, which was meant to overthrow the Tsarist autocracy and create a society based on equality and justice, ended up elevating the ideals of Marxism-Leninism to a level of religious devotion. The idea of "the people" and "the revolution" became sacred, and the individual was expected to sacrifice their autonomy for the collective good.
Under Stalin's regime, the idea of a "classless society" was elevated to an unassailable truth, and anyone who questioned or deviated from this ideology was seen as a threat to the state and its ideals. The so-called "cult of personality" around Stalin himself, where he was portrayed almost as a god-like figure, further demonstrated how leftist ideology morphed into a new form of religious devotion. People were required to subjugate themselves not just to the state, but to the abstract, and often manipulated, ideals of the revolution, justice, and the future socialist society.
Much like traditional religious dogma, Stalinist communism demanded faith in a system that was inherently abstract and ideologically constructed, with little room for individual autonomy or dissent. Those who were branded as "enemies of the state" were often subjected to brutal punishment, reflecting how the worship of these abstract ideals could lead to a new form of totalitarian control, replacing one oppressive structure with another under the guise of liberation.
Stirner would argue that, in the case of the Soviet Union, the individual was not freed but re-subjugated—this time not to a monarch or religious authority, but to the idea of the "people's will," the "revolution," and the abstract, inflexible dogma of Marxist-Leninism.
But in any case, it’s important to note that Stirner doesn’t oppose collective action in itself. He’s not saying that people shouldn’t work together or form alliances. What he opposes is the elevation of the collective over the individual because, well…he just doesn’t think it will work.
So…for Stirner, these ideologies aren’t just false; they are illusions—they are phantoms that take on a life of their own.
The reality is that these causes don’t exist independently of the people who give them meaning. The individual, once again, becomes lost in the worship of these spooks.
Leftist Anarchism
Let’s now go a little deeper and look at not just leftism, but Leftist Anarchism, so those who are interested in abolishing the state, capitalism and social inequality altogether and are willing to go a little further in their actions.
Leftist anarchism advocates for a society where individuals freely associate, and where they are unrestrained by coercive systems. Sounds all peachy but to Stirner, this vision is far from the true liberation it claims to be. Instead, he believes that it still falls prey to the same fundamental error as other forms of leftism: the elevation of collective ideals over the individual.
“[A]ll of us must have nothing, that “all may have.”
For Stirner, anarchism’s vision of a stateless society isn’t the problem at all. What’s problematic is that, even in an anarchist environment, the individual is still expected to sacrifice themselves for the collective good—whether it's "the people," "the community," or "the revolution." Even though anarchism rejects the state, it still constructs a new kind of moral order that demands allegiance to ideals like equality, justice, or solidarity.
“What will the society that no longer cares about anything private do? Make the private impossible? No, but 'subordinate it to the interests of society.'”
Stirner also isn’t necessarily against the idea of voluntary associations or communities; rather, he’s against the notion that these associations should serve a collective ideal that overrides individual autonomy. For him, the anarchist who submits themselves to the cause of "the people" or "the revolution" is just as enslaved as someone serving under a king or a government. These ideals, these spooks, still have the power to control the individual, whether or not they’re clothed in the language of liberation.
“Now masterlessness is indeed at the same time freedom from service, possessionlessness at the same time freedom from care, and godlessness at the same time freedom from prejudice: for with the master the servant falls away; with possession, the care about it; with the firmly-rooted God, prejudice. But, since the master rises again as state, the servants appear again as subject; since possession becomes the property of society, care is begotten anew as labour; and, since God as Man becomes a prejudice, there arises a new faith, faith in humanity or liberty.”
So what Stirner proposes instead is a radical form of individual autonomy where no one is required to sacrifice themselves for any collective cause. He insists that true freedom comes from the rejection of all these abstractions.
To Stirner, even the most radical anarchists are trapped by their devotion to these lofty ideals. While they reject external rulers, they unknowingly create new internal ones. These internal rulers take on the role of oppressors, demanding that the individual conform to their will. Even in a stateless society, the individual is not truly free if they are bound by the chains of abstract ideals.
“To demand of people that they become wholly men is to call on them to cast down all human limits. That is impossible, because Man has no limits. I have some indeed, but then it is only mine that concern me any, and only they can be overcome by me.”
The bottom line for Stirner is clear: Anarchism on the left, like all leftist movements, fails to liberate the individual. The true path to liberation lies not in the destruction of the state alone, but in the destruction of spooks. And without this, any revolution, anarchist or otherwise, is doomed to repeat the same mistake: the creation of a new authority that subjugates the individual in the name of a higher cause.
“You are distinguished beyond other men not by being man, but because you are a “unique” man. Doubtless you show what a man can do; but because you, a man, do it, this by no means shows that others, also men, are able to do as much; you have executed it only as a unique man, and are unique therein.
It is not man that makes up your greatness, but you create it, because you are more than man, and mightier than other – men.
It is believed that one cannot be more than man. Rather, one cannot be less!”
Post-Left-Anarchism
Now let’s look at the more contemporary movement of post-left anarchism and see if Stirner aligns more here. Post-Left-Anarchism is a form of anarchist thought that emerged in the late 20th century, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, as a critique of traditional leftist anarchism. It rejects both the hierarchical structures of the state and the rigid, dogmatic elements within leftist political ideologies. Post-left anarchism seeks to move beyond the conventional left-right political spectrum and critiques the ways in which traditional leftist movements, including anarchism, can become ideological, moralistic, and authoritarian in their pursuit of equality, justice, and revolution.
Key characteristics of post-left anarchism include the following:
Rejection of Ideological Orthodoxy
Post-left anarchists criticize the tendency within traditional anarchism and leftism to impose abstract ideals as ultimate goals. They argue that these ideals can become authoritarian in nature when they demand absolute allegiance and subjugate individual desires in favor of collective causes. In this way, post-left anarchism aligns somewhat with Stirner's critique of abstract ideals, viewing them as "spooks" that can limit true individual autonomy.
Anti-Politics
Post-left anarchism often rejects the traditional notion of "politics" itself, and views it as an extension of the state or a mechanism that still reinforces the social order. Instead of engaging in formal political struggles, post-left anarchists emphasize the importance of creating alternative ways of living and organizing outside of state structures. They argue that political movements, even if aiming for liberation, can become co-opted by power dynamics and ideological constraints.
Focus on Autonomy and Self-Realization
Post-left anarchists place a strong emphasis on individual autonomy and self-realization. They criticize leftist movements for often subordinating personal freedom and creativity to the collective or ideological causes. Instead, they advocate for a more fluid, decentralized approach to anarchism that prioritizes the free expression of individuals and the rejection of fixed roles or identities.
Critique of Revolution and the "Utopian" Ideal
Post-left anarchism challenges the traditional anarchist or leftist idea that a revolution or societal upheaval is necessary to achieve liberation. Rather than waiting for a future, idealized society to emerge, post-left anarchists focus on creating moments of resistance and individual freedom in the present. They question the efficacy of long-term, large-scale revolutionary projects, and often see them as prone to creating new forms of authority.
Influence of Post-Structuralism and Anti-Capitalism
Post-left anarchism draws on post-structuralist and anti-capitalist ideas, particularly from thinkers like Foucault, Deleuze, and Guattari. These philosophers focus on the ways in which power operates in subtle and decentralized ways throughout society, challenging traditional ideas of revolution and class struggle. Post-left anarchists often advocate for forms of resistance that are more decentralized, subtle, and creative.
Stirner is often seen as a forerunner for post-left-anarchism.
But is it the same?
Stirner’s philosophy aligns with post-left anarchism in several key ways, particularly in its rejection of abstract ideals and collective submission. Both Stirner and post-left anarchism critique the elevation of ideals like "the people," "justice," and "revolution" as spooks. Stirner argues that these concepts become authoritative, just as post-left anarchism critiques the ways these ideals can become authoritarian even within anti-authoritarian movements. Both also prioritize individual autonomy over ideological commitment, with Stirner emphasizing personal freedom and egoistic self-interest, which resonates with post-left anarchism’s critique of movements that subordinate the individual to collective goals. Additionally, Stirner’s anti-revolutionary stance, which rejects traditional revolutionary action in favor of rejecting all external authority in the present, aligns with post-left anarchism’s focus on localized, immediate forms of resistance. Stirner also critiques political movements as co-opted by power dynamics, a view that mirrors post-left anarchism's skepticism toward formal political engagement.
However, Stirner deviates from post-left anarchism in one aspect. He warns that rebellion, even in the name of anti-authoritarianism or in an attempt to deconstruct spooks, can become a problem in itself because it often leads to the creation of new forms of submission just like conformity does. His egoism, instead, compels him to reject any form of practice that isn’t determined by his own will. For Stirner it is imperative to first deeply understand one’s own intentions and the intentions of others, not just through deconstruction but also through deep self reflection before any kind of practice to liberate oneself can be developed. And most certainly before any collective or cultural liberation can be achieved.
Detour: Stirner Through Lacan
This is where Lacan's theory of the Real and the Symbolic offers a useful framework for understanding the limitations of post-left anarchism, especially when analyzed through the lens of Stirner's philosophy. Lacan's distinction between the Real and the Symbolic speaks to the tension between what is unspeakable or unsymbolizable (the Real) and the system of signifiers, language, and social order (the Symbolic).
The Symbolic represents the domain of meaning, language, culture, and identity, where individuals are constantly structured by societal norms, codes, and ideologies. The Real, by contrast, is the register of that which escapes symbolization and representation—it is the inarticulable, the raw force of the world that cannot be fully integrated into the structures of language and society. In Lacanian terms, the Real is "outside" the Symbolic, but it nonetheless exerts a powerful influence on it, as the subject constantly grapples with its presence through the limits of language and the gaps in signification.
When we apply this to Stirner's philosophy, we see that his radical individualism, his insistence on the uniqueness and irreducibility of the self, aligns with Lacan's notion of the Real. Stirner’s philosophy, like Lacan’s Real, resists totalization and symbolization within any broader ideological system. Any attempt to universalize or systematize Stirner’s thought—such as integrating it into a political ideology—would turn it into a spook.
But now you’re probably thinking “but didn’t Stirner also write a book about this? How is it any different?
Well…Stirner’s work is not really philosophical exploration per se; in its language, it is a radical, personal expression of the individual’s confrontation with societal norms and the structures of power.
I wrote about this a while back, and I suggest you have a look at my findings:
But in any case, his writing is intentionally fragmented, irreverent, and almost confrontational in its refusal to submit to any overarching system, whether political, religious, or ideological. This isn’t just a critique of authority; it is a lived, subjective experience of liberation, one that resists being encapsulated by language or theory. Stirner’s focus is on the singular, unique individual that is him, and this makes his philosophy deeply personal. It doesn’t aim to create a blueprint or system for others to follow. His work is a mirror for the reader, a reflection of their own struggle with external forces, but not something that can be codified or replicated in a collective sense, even though people have tried to do that for a long time.
In contrast, post-left anarchism, like any -ism, like any ism that accepts its ism-ness seeks to structure a worldview around certain principles, concepts, and language. And that is the problem. It takes the liberatory ideas Stirner and others have proposed and tries to translate them into a shared language or a social practice. In doing so, it risks transforming those ideas into a concept or a system that can be implemented, followed, and ultimately institutionalized. This process of “speaking something into language,” is dangerous because it creates a universal framework that can be adopted by others, but in doing so, it loses the immediate, raw, and personal freedom that Stirner emphasizes. It becomes something external to the individual rather than a deeply personal experience of self-ownership.
Post-left anarchism speaks of “freedom,” “autonomy,” and “non-hierarchy,” but these terms, once introduced into language and society, can be co-opted, diluted, and institutionalized, which will directly affect post-anarchism. The moment you can name something, write about it, or pass it on to others, it risks becoming an object, a structure—something that is no longer personal but rather something imposed upon the individual.
And Stirner didn’t call egoism egoism.
Thus, Stirner’s philosophy operates within the realm of personal, individual "ownness" and this is something he continuously focuses on, by rejecting any attempt to translate it into the language of the Symbolic. The moment a philosophy, like post-left anarchism, attempts to represent the real, personal experience of freedom within the confines of language or societal structures (i.e., within the Symbolic), it loses its force and becomes a spook. So egoism cannot be advocacy. Stirner would argue that the promotion of such ideologies, whether post-left anarchism or any other system, is futile, because the moment it is made into a universal concept, it becomes something that can be taken up and used as a tool for control or co-option.
The concept of Temporary Autonomous Zones (TAZ), as introduced by Hakim Bey, is a prime example of this. TAZ seeks to create liberated spaces outside of the dominant social, political, or economic order. While Stirner might initially appear sympathetic to the idea of autonomy, he would quickly critique the idea that such spaces could be defined, maintained, or universally applicable. The very notion of creating a "good" or "ideal" autonomous zone that could be replicated or spread would ultimately turn it into a spook. As soon as TAZ becomes a generalized concept or ideal, it loses its uniqueness and becomes a tool for the Symbolic order.
Unlike post-left anarchism, which critiques social norms and strives for alternative social structures, Stirner sees these efforts as distractions from the ultimate goal of deep understanding of oneself and the world the ego is trapped in. He believes that, rather than focusing on rebellion or resistance, the individual should prioritize their own autonomy and desires and he acknowledges that this is an incredibly difficult but not impossible path which is tied to a practice of consistent self-reflection and radical honesty with oneself. This demands a deep understanding of desire as a process that has the potential to own us.
So Stirner’s EXTREME focus on desire as the foundation for true authentic uniqueness makes him…well…unique.
Sources:
“The Ego and its Own” by Max Stirner
“Ecrits” by Jacques Lacan
"From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power" by Saul Newman
"The Politics of Postanarchism" by Saul Newman
"Post-Anarchism: A Reader" edited by Duane Rousselle and Süreyyya Evren
"Gramsci is Dead: Anarchist Currents in the Newest Social Movements" by Richard J.F. Day
"Postanarchism" by Duane Rousselle
'My aim is not the overthrow of an established order, but my elevation above it' 👌