Max Stirner: The ego and his own (Roots of the Right: readings in fascist, racist and elitist ideology) [Unknown Binding]

Max Stirner (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Language Notes

Text: English, German (translation)

Product Details

• Unknown Binding: 266 pages
• Publisher: Harper & Row (1971)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 006014131X
• ISBN-13: 978-0060141318
• Average Customer Review: 1.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #5,200,503 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

12 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars I'd say entirely worthless., March 9, 2005

By 

Elizabeth Nortz - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Max Stirner: The ego and his own (Roots of the Right: readings in fascist, racist and elitist ideology)

Stirner's work is clearly of an anarchist nature. Putting this in a series of Fascist authors is just intellectual dishonesty and distorted logic. Stirner's entire argument is that the individual should not be subordinated to any state, God, etc.; it is a call for autonomy in line with other individualist/anarchist writings.

Look for other editions of this book if you have any interest in Stirner or his ideas.

12 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Almost worthless for the study of Stirner's ideas..., March 5, 2005

By 

Einzige "Just a dude" (Phoenix Arizona) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Max Stirner: The ego and his own (Roots of the Right: readings in fascist, racist and elitist ideology)

The underhanded way that this book tries to place even the smallest bit of responsibility for the "70 million...dead through war, revolution and famine in Europe and Russia between 1914 and 1945" (page 7) at the feet of Stirner--while at the same time omitting any hint of Marx's responsibility--is patently disgusting.

I say this book is "almost worthless" because I think any honest intellectual pursuit requires examining varying perspectives--if for nothing else, then at least for gaining a clearer understanding of your own. Considered in this way, the worth of this book consists in how it reveals the intellectual vacuum that is Marxism.

Pointing out that Stirner's preferred method of social change is insurrection and self-liberation--as opposed to the political action and violence preferred by the left--Carroll, in his introduction, asserts, "Stirner has by default Rightist tendencies." Furthermore, that Marxists, therefore, have the "right" to make the argument favored by demagogues and ideologues throughout history: "He who is not with us is against us." (page 13)

What such an argument reveals, without even meaning to, is the fundamental inadequacy of the right-left spectrum. Carroll can sense this (on page 16, for example, he says "Stirner is one of the men who defy political classification; the orthodox categories break down."), but he apparently doesn't have the ability to break free of it. It would seem that, to him, our only choices are the dictatorship of the proletariat on the left hand, or the dictatorship of the total state on the right. The autonomy of the individual is out of the question. It takes the one-dimensional thinking of an authoritarian Hegelian to posit such a false dichotomy, as if fascism and socialism were our only options.

Carroll then tries to tie Stirner to Italian Fascism with a couple of vague, inconsequential quotes from Mussolini: "And these summits of the spirit are called Stirner, Nietzsche..." (page 13); "Leave the way free for the elemental power of the individual...Why shouldn't Stirner become significant again?" (page 14). That's all Carroll has in support of his thesis that Stirner had an influence on Fascist Italy???

Of course Carroll fails to mention the inconvenient (to him) fact that Mussolini also said Marx was his "spiritual father" and that "If the 19th century has been the century of the individual (for liberalism means individualism), it may be conjectured that this is the century of the State." Il Duce certainly didn't get such thoughts from Stirner. So much for this line of argument!

Next, Carroll draws some vaporous connections between Stirner and Nazism. Afterwards he admits that Hitler probably never heard of Stirner. Once again, though, he neglects to discuss the much stronger Marxist influence on Nazism. For example, Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, wrote "The National Socialist movement has one single master: Marxism." Hitler himself is purported to have said, "The whole of National Socialism is based on Marx." Oops, another of Carroll's arguments goes up in smoke!

Carroll's attack on Stirner does end with the admission "that the case for including Stirner in `the roots of the Right' is not watertight." My question, then, is: Why publish the book? Carroll's answer appears to be that "many of [Stirner's] themes form a vital component of fascist ideology." However, as I pointed out above, a much stronger case (dare I say "watertight"?) can be made that Marxism, rather than individualism and egoism, is THE vital component of Fascism.

The one redeeming feature of this book would have been the words of Stirner himself. After all, I can think of no stronger argument against Carroll's thesis. Unfortunately, Carroll fixes that one, too. This is an abridged version of Stirner's work, with the selected excerpts chosen by Carroll. Given his agenda, as well as his tendency for excluding things that don't quite fit into his thesis, one has to wonder whether his choices can be trusted to paint an accurate picture of Stirner's philosophy.

If the ideas of Stirner truly interest you then don't discount this book entirely. However, it should be the last Stirner-related book you add to your collection.