The Union of Egoists is a philosophical concept developed by my crush since 8th grade: Max Stirner, who wrote the 1844 text The Ego and Its Own (1844). Stirner is often regarded as one of the key figures in the development of individualist anarchism and existentialist thought. His ideas challenge all ideologies and offer a radical rethinking of individual autonomy and social relations.
At the heart of Stirner’s philosophy is the notion of the ego – and the ego is seen here as a self-determined and self-invented and self-interested person who is on the constant lookout for spooks, or potential illusiory and externally determined ideological concepts or ideals which are trying to infiltrate the ego’s ownness.
In contrast to the collectivist ideologies that demand the subjugation of individual interests for the sake of the common good, Stirner proposes something he calls the Union or, as one of my peeps on Patreon pointed out, the Association of Egoists. It is basically an alternative model of social organization that focuses on voluntary and fluid associations of individuals who cooperate solely based on their self-interests. I would claim that this union is characterized by the following key principles: Voluntariness, Egoistic Motivation, Mutual Benefit, and Transience.
Participation in the union is entirely voluntary. Individuals join and leave as they see fit and desire.
Members of the union act out of self-interest rather than any sense of duty or obligation to a higher cause. The union exists because it benefits the participants, not because of any external moral or ideological imperatives.
While the union is driven by egoism, it acknowledges that cooperation can often serve individual interests better than isolated action. The relationships within the union are based on reciprocity and mutual advantage.
The union is not a permanent or static entity. It evolves and changes as the interests and circumstances of its members change. This fluidity ensures that the union remains relevant and responsive to the needs of its participants.
The Union of Egoists is not just relevant in a practical sense though. It also has some pretty unique implications for understanding social and interpersonal relationships and organization. In this model, society is not seen as a collective entity with a shared purpose but rather a result of individual will as part of a shared understanding grounded in autonomy, agency and self-interest.
Here is what Stirner said about it:
If the state must count on our humanity, it is the same if one says it must count on our morality. Seeing Man in each other, and acting as men toward each other, is called moral behaviour. […} Morality is incompatible with egoism, because the former does not allow validity to me, but only to the Man in me. But, if the state is a society of men, not a union of egos [Verein von Ichen] each of whom has only himself before his eyes, then it cannot last without morality, and must insist on morality. Therefore we two, the state and I, are enemies. I, the egoist, have not at heart the welfare of this “human society,” I sacrifice nothing to it, I only utilize it; but to be able to utilize it completely I transform it rather into my property and my creature; that is, I annihilate it, and form in its place the Union of Egoists [Verein von Egoisten].
Max Stirner, The Ego and its Own (1844)
Okay, that was a lot. Let me make it super duper easy by telling you a story:
Max & The Sandcastle Union of Egoists
Max, a precocious six-year-old with a wild imagination, was at the playground on a bright Saturday afternoon. His friends were scattered around, each engrossed in their own digital worlds with a look of boredom on their faces. Max, however, had a knack for bringing a bit of philosophical chaos to the mix.
He was perched on the swing, pretending to be a fringe 19th century philosopher whom he had seen in a TikTok edit a few hours ago, by wearing random reading glasses he had stolen from his uncle’s house earlier that day. Suddenly, he spotted his friends strangely clustered around the sandbox looking at YouTube videos of kids building sandcastles in sandboxes. Soon, the ordeal turned into a full-on debate about how to build the best sandcastle.
From afar, Max watched Emma, the only girl, and unofficial playground mediator, who was trying to calm the group. “Okay, okay, we’re going to build the biggest, most epic sandcastle ever! Let’s do it together!” she declared.
But needless to say, nobody was listening to reason. The boys kept arguing, one after another attempting to present their respective YouTube research on how to build the most epic sandcastle of all time.
Max, swinging higher and higher, still watching the ordeal from afar had an idea that was both simple and revolutionary. He leaped off the swing, landing in the sandbox with the grace of a cat that had just discovered catnip. He grabbed the kids phones and hurled them into oblivion. Then, with the conviction of a fringe 19th century philosopher he said: “Why don’t we each build our own mini-castle?” he suggested. “Like a sandcastle buffet!”
The kids looked at Max as if he’d just suggested they all start wearing socks on their hands. “But Max,” said Emma, “we were trying to work together to build something amazing.”
Max grinned, brushing sand off her frustrated idealistic face. “But it isn’t working, is it? If we each make our own castle, we can do whatever we want. I’ll make mine with a moat, and you can have a dragon. No arguments! And, in the end, we still have a sandcastle. So, ultimately, the goal is still reached.”
Emma’s eyes sparkled. “You know, that sounds kinda genius. We can all have our own little castles and still hang out.”
The kids hesitantly agreed and scattered to their separate sand territories. Max dug furiously, creating a sand fortress with a moat so deep it could’ve been a mini waterpark.
As they built, Max noticed something interesting: the more they focused on their own castles, the more they shared ideas and tools. “Hey, can I borrow that bucket?” Max would call over, and in return, he’d offer his makeshift drawbridge to Emma. It was almost nauseatingly wholesome.
The sandbox became a buzzing hive of activity and cooperation, despite everyone working on their own projects.
The sandbox was soon transformed into a sprawling kingdom of tiny sand creations, each unique and awesome in its own right. The kids, now covered in sand and grinning ear-to-ear, didn’t care that they hadn’t built one giant castle. They were too busy enjoying their creative freedom and the playful banter that went along with it.
Max sat back, surveying the sandy empire he’d helped create. He turned to Emma, who was busy arranging a sand dragon army. “See? We didn’t have to build one big castle to have fun. We just needed to let everyone do their own thing.”
Emma laughed, wiping sand off her forehead. “And you were right, Max.”
Then the kids wrapped up their day, each one leaving with a memory and a Instagram worthy pic of the buffet of sandcastles, but most importantly, with a newfound appreciation for the chaos of individual freedom. Max, still wearing the stolen glasses from Uncle Bob, walked home with a smile, already dreaming up his next big idea.
What Other Smart People Have Said About It
Okay, so that should have made it pretty clear. But since I would never want you to just take my word for it, I would like to quickly present you with a variety of debates and discussions surrounding the ‘Union of Egoists’ concept.
Benjamin Tucker
Benjamin Tucker, a significant figure in American individualist anarchism, underwent a notable philosophical shift influenced by Max Stirner's concept of the Union of Egoists.
This shift was not without controversy. Tucker's rejection of natural rights in favor of Stirnerite egoism sparked fierce debates within the anarchist community. Proponents of natural rights accused egoists of undermining the very foundations of libertarianism. The conflict was so intense that it led to the withdrawal of several prominent natural rights advocates from Tucker’s publication, Liberty.
The philosophical alignment between Tucker and Stirner is evident in Tucker’s writings and editorial direction. He increasingly championed the notion that societal institutions, including the state, are coercive structures that infringe upon individual freedom.
Renzo Novatore
Renzo Novatore's interpretation of the Union of Egoists concept is deeply influenced by his own anarchist thought and the existentialist philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.
Novatore believed that true anarchy could only be achieved through the realization of the individual's potential, rather than through the establishment of any particular social system, including libertarian communism. He criticized other forms of anarchism that aimed to create new societal structures, by arguing that these would ultimately oppress the individual just as the old structures had. Instead, he saw anarchy as a means to enhance individual freedom and expression, rather than an end in itself.
In his writings, Novatore described a "libertarian aristocracy" composed of unique individuals who band together in their shared disdain for societal constraints. This concept closely aligns with Stirner's idea of the Union of Egoists, where individuals voluntarily unite based on mutual self-interest and respect for each other's autonomy. Novatore's ideal society is one where these egoists coexist without coercion, maintaining their individuality while engaging in temporary and voluntary associations.
Novatore's approach also incorporates Nietzschean themes, particularly the idea of the Übermensch (Overman or Superman), who transcends conventional morality to create his own values. Novatore saw the Union of Egoists as a collective of such Übermensch figures, who pursue their individual goals and passions, unbound by the limitations of ordinary social constructs.
John Henry Mackay
John Henry Mackay, a key proponent of individualist anarchism and a devoted supporter of Max Stirner, played a significant role in reviving and propagating the concept of the union of egoists.
The union of egoists as understood by Mackay is a voluntary, temporary association of individuals who come together purely based on their self-interests. These associations are not bound by any higher moral or social laws but are maintained as long as they serve the individuals' purposes. Once these purposes are fulfilled or no longer align with individual interests, the union dissolves.
Mackay emphasized that this form of association stands in stark contrast to the state and other hierarchical structures, which impose authority and obligations on individuals regardless of their personal interests or consent.
In promoting Stirner's ideas, Mackay also highlighted the incompatibility between egoism and traditional anarchism. While traditional anarchists often advocate for a stateless society based on mutual aid and collective principles, Mackay stressed that the egoist's primary concern is personal freedom and self-interest. This perspective led him to critique various forms of anarchism that, in his view, still imposed moralistic or collectivist constraints on individual freedom.
Sidney Parker
Sidney E. Parker's interpretation of the Union of Egoists is deeply critical of power relations in everyday life.
Parker argued that moral and legal codes are constructs and believed that true egoists are only concerned with actions that further their own interests, and thereby disregarding societal notions of right and wrong. For Parker, actions are neither morally right nor wrong but are simply expedient or inexpedient depending on whether they help achieve one's goals.
Central to Parker's thought is the rejection of anarchism as a viable path to individual freedom. He viewed anarchism, despite its anti-authoritarian stance, as another form of idealism that ultimately imposes its own form of control and moralism. Instead, Parker promoted a form of individualism that embraces the reality of power and domination as inherent aspects of human relations. He maintained that individuals should navigate these dynamics pragmatically, supporting or opposing laws and social structures based solely on personal benefit.
David Leopold
David Leopold, a prominent scholar of political theory and philosophy, has made significant contributions to the understanding of Max Stirner's concept of the Union of Egoists. Leopold's analysis primarily focuses on the nuances and implications of Stirner's ideas within the broader context of 19th-century philosophy and their relevance to contemporary thought.
Leopold's interpretation of the Union of Egoists emphasizes its nature as a voluntary and non-systematic association formed by individuals who act out of conscious self-interest. Unlike traditional forms of social organization that impose external obligations and moral duties on individuals, the Union of Egoists is based on mutual benefit and the free will of its members. This association is characterized by its fluidity and the absence of fixed roles or hierarchies, aligning with Stirner's critique of state and societal structures which he viewed as oppressive and dehumanizing.
Leopold also addresses the practical implications of Stirner's egoism, noting that the Union of Egoists is not meant to be a prescriptive social model but rather a conceptual framework that challenges conventional notions of community and solidarity. The union operates on the premise that each member's participation is continually renewed through acts of will, ensuring that the association remains genuinely voluntary and self-serving.
Furthermore, Leopold highlights Stirner's rejection of any moral justification for egoism. Unlike philosophers who seek to ground egoism in rational or ethical principles, Stirner’s thought is purely self-referential and pragmatic. This approach liberates individuals from the constraints of moral and social norms, allowing them to pursue their own interests without guilt or obligation.
Saul Newman
Saul Newman, a political theorist, provides a contemporary analysis of Max Stirner's concept of the Union of Egoists, and aligns it with his broader critique of ideological constructs and state power. Newman's interpretation is deeply embedded in his critique of both traditional revolutionary politics and modern identity politics, which he views as limiting and counterproductive.
Newman argues that the left's focus on revolutionary narratives and identity politics has led to a political deadlock, unable to effect meaningful change. Instead, he advocates for a Stirner-inspired approach. In this framework, the Union of Egoists represents a form of association free from systematic structures and ideological commitments.
Furthermore, Newman highlights that an egoist insurrection is fundamentally anti-institutional. It is a call for individuals to reclaim their subjectivity and engage in a transformative process that starts with self-liberation which can then potentially extend to broader social changes - but that is not the priority. This form of insurrection is seen as a more immediate act of resistance, one that does not rely on the eventual overthrow of state structures but rather on the ongoing transformation of individual and collective subjectivities.
The Main Critiques of the Concept
So, what are the main critiques of the concept?
The concept of the Union of Egoists has been a subject of considerable debate and skepticism. Critics have raised several concerns regarding the practical application, ethical implications, and philosophical consistency of the Union of Egoists. This chapter explores some of the main doubts and criticisms that have been expressed over time.
1. Practical Feasibility & Potential for Deterioration
One of the primary doubts about the Union of Egoists is its practical feasibility. Critics argue that while the concept is intellectually stimulating, it may not be sustainable in real-world social interactions. The inherent fluidity and temporary nature of the union raises questions about its stability and durability.
Philosophers and social theorists have pointed out that human relationships often require a degree of consistency and predictability that the Union of Egoists does not provide. Without a sense of long-term commitment or obligation, it is unclear how such unions can endure in the face of conflicts or when the immediate self-interests of individuals diverge.
2. Ethical Concerns
Another major criticism of the Union of Egoists revolves around its ethical implications. Critics argue that this form of ethical egoism can lead to a disregard for the well-being of others and justify actions that might be considered exploitative or harmful.
Some critics highlight that the Union of Egoists could potentially endorse a form of social Darwinism, where the stronger individuals dominate the weaker ones based on their self-interest. This raises concerns about the potential for abuse and inequality within such unions, as there are no moral or ethical checks to balance power dynamics.
3. Social and Political Implications
Critics also express doubts about the broader social and political implications of the Union of Egoists. While the concept aims to dismantle oppressive state structures and promote individual autonomy, it does not provide a clear alternative for organizing society on a larger scale. Without some form of collective governance or shared norms, it is uncertain how larger social issues such as justice, security, and resource distribution would be addressed.
4. Psychological Realism
Lastly, some critics question the psychological realism of the Union of Egoists. The assumption that individuals can always act rationally and consistently in their self-interest is seen as overly simplistic. Human behavior is often influenced by emotions, irrational desires, and unconscious biases, which can complicate the formation and maintenance of purely egoistic associations.
Moreover, the emphasis on self-interest may overlook the inherently social and empathetic aspects of human nature. Critics argue that relationships based solely on self-interest might fail to capture the depth and complexity of human connections, which often involve elements of altruism, empathy, and sacrifice.
How Would Max Stirner Counter the Critiques?
To explore how Max Stirner might address the critiques of his concept, let's use a more relatable example: a community of freelancers working together in a shared workspace.
Imagine a group of independent professionals—writers, designers, and programmers—who decide to collaborate in a shared co-working space. They come together not as a formal company but as a voluntary association of egoists. Each individual is motivated by their self-interest: they want a productive environment, networking opportunities, and the occasional collaboration to enhance their work and the flow of ideas. This co-working space, in essence, becomes a “union of egoists.”
Let’s look at the easy critiques first by countering with one simple saying:
DONT KNOCK IT IF YOU HAVEN’T TRIED IT!!!
Philosophical Inconsistencies
Let’s look at the philosophical inconsistencies argument: The shared workspace example demonstrates that cooperation and mutual benefit do not contradict individualism but rather reflect it. Freelancers in the workspace agree to certain norms and collaborative practices not out of a sense of collective obligation but because it serves their personal interests. The cooperation seen in such settings is a manifestation of individuals aligning their self-interests to achieve their goals. This form of cooperation is pragmatic and contingent.
Social and Political Implications
Now the social and political implications argument. Let me ask you this, genius…why is it so important to you to be safe and for things to be organized? Like seriously why…ask yourself that. You do know that you are going to die at some point, right? Like a bug, like the chicken on your plate. Honestly all I want to say when I hear this argument is “get over yourself!”
But I will humor you and make a real argument:
In a shared workspace, resource distribution and conflict resolution occur through voluntary agreements and mutual exchanges rather than centralized governance. I thought this is a democracy…I thought we vote for things. Well…you might. I don’t. But how is it that essentially different anyways?
For instance, freelancers might establish informal agreements about shared space usage, equipment maintenance, or collaborative projects. These arrangements are negotiated based on personal interests and mutual benefit. Basically…this demonstrates that effective resource management and conflict resolution can occur in the absence of formal governance structures.
We literally decide things all the time. And on a larger scale…well…there doesn’t have to be one. Just keep it simple.
Psychological Realism
So, the question here is: Can individuals be rational all the time. And to that I say: Of course not. Have you looked around lately? So…like…doesn’t that mean that the lack of rationality is already a thing. Already an issue. Why is it somehow going to be worse when people just do their own thing?
Let’s assume human nature is essentially empathetic and loving and kind which…I don’t know if you have watched the news lately or…anytime within the last centuries but…THEN ISN’T THAT JUST YOU GIVING YOURSELF AN ARGUMENT FOR WHY THIS PROBABLY WOULD WORK AND WE DON’T NEED SOMEONE TO TELL US WHAT TO DO???
Practical Feasibility: The Everyday Work Hub
Now the big arguments.
A lot of critics questioned whether a society organized purely around egoistic unions could avoid conflicts from misaligned interests. In the co-working space example, conflicts could arise over shared resources, like meeting rooms or equipment. Some freelancers might need more space than others or have different working hours.
However, Stirner might argue that the nature of this co-working space is inherently flexible. If conflicts arise, individuals would handle them by negotiating and adjusting their arrangements based on their own needs and desires. For example, if two freelancers need the same meeting room at the same time, they would have to negotiate or even fight over that space. I mean…what is more common than that? Either they come to an arrangement or someone has to simply TAKE the space, in which case the association between those two entities has been broken. That does not mean the association with others has been broken.
It’s the way of the world, kids. If you like it or not. Some people are stronger than you and better at things. Unless you want to become better at them, you are going to have to count your losses. But there is nothing wrong with this fluidity. In fact, Stirner considers this pretty much the only reasonable way to interact:
Each has his own way of getting rid of the ‘coercion’ or ‘imposition’ that is laid upon him, and thus everyone has his own way of dealing with his fellow-men, according to his own individual will.
Max Stirner, The Ego and its Own (1844)
Potential for Deterioration: The Risk of Domination
This leads us to our next critique: The Potential for Deterioration. In the co-working space, there’s a risk that if a dominant freelancer, who may have more experience or connections, starts to impose their preferences or rules on others, it could limit the freedom of other members.
If Stirner is anything like me he would probably counter this by screaming that the key to avoiding domination is not the freaking establishment of a SOCIAL ORDER, for fuck sake, but the voluntary nature of the co-working space AS A DAMN CONCEPT. If a dominant freelancer begins to impose rules or exert influence that others find restrictive, they can choose to leave the space or form their own group. LITERALLY WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? The voluntary exit option is a ALREADY inherently a cure to the domination.
This kind of thinking literally makes me think that the people who want social order so badly are just wimps who don’t want to fight for anything in life. Where did you get your entitlement from? Seriously gtfoh-
The essence of the union of egoists is that it relies on the self-interested choices of individuals, who are free to leave if their self-interest is no longer served. Therefore, any form of domination would be countered by the very principle of voluntary association.
I am owner of my might, and I am so when I know myself as unique. In the unique one the owner himself returns into his creative nothing, of which he is born. Every higher essence above me, be it God, be it man, weakens the feeling of my uniqueness, and pales only before the sun of this consciousness. 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 (1844)
References
Check out my blog (book suggestions on civil society studies)
Check out my blog (book suggestions on voluntary cooperation)
Books Mentioned or Referenced
!!! If you use any of these links to purchase the books or anything else on Amazon, I will receive a commission via the Amazon Affiliates program.
You can also get them straight from my storefront: Amazon Book Storefront
The Ego and Its Own (1844) - Max Stirner
Max Stirner (1988) - John P. Clark
The Philosophy of Egoism (1905) - James L. Walker (Tak Kak)
Ego and Its Own: The Case of the Individual Against Authority (2017) - David Leopold
From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power (2007) - Saul Newman
Max Stirner: His Life and His Work (1898) - John Henry Mackay
The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1980) - Frank H. Brooks (editor)
Other:
Here are the sources I used for summarizing the thoughts of various individuals on the Union of Egoists concept:
"Benjamin Tucker" on Wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker)
"The Ego and Its Own" by Max Stirner, including Tucker's interpretations: (https://libcom.org)
"Liberty" publication and its archives: (https://theanarchistlibrary.org)
"Renzo Novatore" on Wikipedia: [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renzo_Novatore)
Various writings and essays by Renzo Novatore: (https://theanarchistlibrary.org)
"Toward the Creative Nothing" by Renzo Novatore: (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/renzo-novatore-toward-the-creative-nothing)
"John Henry Mackay" on Wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Mackay)
"The Anarchists" by John Henry Mackay: (https://libcom.org)
Various writings and essays by Mackay:(https://theanarchistlibrary.org)
"Sidney E. Parker" on Wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_E._Parker)
Various writings and essays by Sidney Parker: (https://theanarchistlibrary.org)
Articles on philosophical egoism and individualist anarchism: (https://theanarchistlibrary.org)
"Max Stirner" on Wikipedia, including interpretations by David Leopold: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner)
David Leopold's scholarly articles and annotations: (https://global.oup.com)
"Saul Newman" on Wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Newman)
"From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power" by Saul Newman: (https://books.google.com)
Various writings and essays by Saul Newman: (https://theanarchistlibrary.org)
"Politics of Postanarchism" by Saul Newman: (https://books.google.com)
These sources provide a comprehensive overview of the thoughts of these key figures on the Union of Egoists concept.