Union of egoists

Max Stirner's idea of the "union of egoists" (German: Verein von Egoisten) was first expounded in The Ego and Its Own.

[...] You bring into a union your whole power, your competence, and make yourself count; in a society you are employed, with your working power; in the former you live egoistically, in the latter humanly, i.e. religiously, as a "member in the body of this Lord”; to a society you owe what you have, and are in duty bound to it, are—possessed by "social duties"; a union you utilize, and give it up undutifully and unfaithfully when you see no way to use it further".

The "exclusiveness" of the egoist, which some want to pass off as isolation, separation, loneliness, is on the contrary full participation in the interesting by—exclusion of the uninteresting".

[4] In this work, Stirner corrects what he sees as a misinterpretation of his idea of Union of egoists by the German socialist writer Moses Hess.

He charges Hess of wanting to characterize Unions of egoists as "the utterly common opposition of the liberal bourgeoisies who put the blame on the state when people fall into poverty and starve".

If Hess attentively observed real life, to which he holds so much, he will see hundreds of such egoistic unions, some passing quickly, others lasting.

It does not imply though that there would be a region of universal rapacity and perpetual slaughter, nor does it mean the wielding of power over others as each person would defend his own uniqueness.

[5] Carlson views the Union of egoists as essentially a non-formal group that participants voluntarily engage in for personal gain.

Since no one person is obligated to the group, they may leave if it ceases to serve their interests, making the benefit mutual to all members.

[5] Stirner held that only this form of organisation would not intrude on the individual's power, exerting neither moral influence nor legal constraint.

[5] In his introduction to Benjamin Tucker's 1907 edition of The Ego and His Own, James L. Walker said: "In Stirner we have the philosophical foundation for political liberty.

His interest in the practical development of egoism to the dissolution of the State and the union of free men is clear and pronounced, and harmonizes perfectly with the economic philosophy of Josiah Warren.

Similarly, we discover the noted anarchist historian Max Nettlau stating that "[o]n reading Stirner, I maintain that he cannot be interpreted except in a socialist sense".

[6] They also say "Stirner believed that as more and more people become egoists, conflict in society will decrease as each individual recognises the uniqueness of others, thus ensuring a suitable environment within which they can co-operate (or find "truces" in the "war of all against all").

[...] The unions Stirner desires would be based on free agreement, being spontaneous and voluntary associations drawn together out of the mutual interests of those involved, who would "care best for their welfare if they unite with others" [p. 309].

To better understand the nature of these associations, which will replace the state, Stirner lists the relationships between friends, lovers and children at play as examples [No Gods, No Masters, vol.

[6] The idea of Union of egoists was interpreted in a sexual sense by French and Spanish individualist anarchists of the early 20th century.

Catalan historian Xavier Diez reports: "In this sense, the theoretical positions and the vital experiences of french [sic] individualism are deeply iconoclastic and scandalous, even within libertarian circles.

The individual who realizes this immediacy can widen the circle of pleasure to some extent simply by waking from the hypnosis of the "Spooks" (as Stirner called all abstractions); and yet more can be accomplished by "crime"; and still more by the doubling of the Self in sexuality.

From Stirner's "Union of Self-Owning Ones" we proceed to Nietzsche's circle of "Free Spirits" and thence to Charles Fourier's "Passional Series", doubling and redoubling ourselves even as the Other multiplies itself in the eros of the group.

He says that "face-to-face, a group of humans synergize their efforts to realize mutual desires, whether for good food and cheer, dance, conversation, the arts of life; perhaps even for erotic pleasure, or to create a communal artwork, or to attain the very transport of bliss—in short, a "union of egoists" (as Stirner put it) in its simplest form—or else, in Kropotkin's terms, a basic biological drive to "mutual aid".