个人与国家的关系是建设现代化国家所不能回避的重要课题。施蒂纳批判国家，否认国家存在的必要性，走向了无政府主义。马克思通过分析国家的历史生成过程，揭露了国家对社会的依赖性及其阶级本质。研究马克思对施蒂纳国家批判观的批判与超越，不仅有助于理解马克思所实现的国家观变革，而且能够为我国当前国家现代化建设提供理论资源。施蒂纳从国家与个人关系的表象出发，批判国家通过法限制个人权利，借助占有抑制个人能力，作为先在之物决定个人存在，是个性的对立面。马克思延续了施蒂纳国家批判的问题意识，但认为施蒂纳的批判依然停留于观念领域。真正的批判在于从抽象的观念批判转向客观的现实批判：法作为阶级利益的表达，对个人呈现异己性；私人占有作为历史的产物与一般占有具有差异性；国家取得独立性假象，但实质却是阶级统治的工具，具有历史必然性，并非是真正的共同体。对于如何超越国家实现个人的解放，施蒂纳将国家对个人的压制解释为观念的统治，要解放个人，就需要个人成为“唯一者”，并以联盟的方式重建属于“我”的交往。但“唯一者”虽然保留了个性，在马克思看来仍旧是抽象观念的产物，个人的解放应当在物质生产中实现。马克思以“现实的诸个人”（die wirklichen Individuen）为起点，揭示施蒂纳的异己观念是交往关系的实体化，要实现有个性的个人之间的交往，必须建立真正的共同体。马克思之所以能够批判并超越施蒂纳，源于他所实现的哲学变革。施蒂纳颠覆了费尔巴哈的句法，将类本质规定为个人的谓语；置换了黑格尔的辩证法体系，以绝对个性替代绝对精神，但最终因方法的错位，并没有完成国家批判。马克思在借鉴吸收费尔巴哈的感性立场和黑格尔的辩证法合理因素的基础上，创立了唯物史观，深入物质生产发现了国家的独立性假象根源与阶级实质，为实现个人解放提供了理论支持与实践指导。

The relationship between the individual and the state is an important subject that cannot be avoided in building a modern state. Stirner criticised the state, denying the necessity of its existence and moving towards anarchism. By analysing the historical process of the generation of the state, Marx exposed the dependence of the state on society and its class nature. Studying Marx‘s critique and transcendence of Stirner‘s critical view of the state not only helps to understand the change in the view of the state that Marx achieved, but can also provide theoretical resources for the current modernisation of the state in China.Starting from the appearance of the relationship between the state and the individual, Stirner criticises the state as the antithesis of individuality by limiting individual rights through law, inhibiting individual capabilities by means of possession, and determining individual existence as a priori. Marx continues the problematic awareness of Stirner‘s critique of the state, but argues that Stirner‘s critique remains in the realm of ideas. The real critique lies in moving from the abstract critique of ideas to the objective critique of reality: the law as an expression of class interests, alien to the individual; private appropriation as a product of history as distinct from ordinary appropriation; the state gaining the illusion of independence but in essence being an instrument of class domination, a historical necessity, not a true community. As to how the emancipation of the individual can be achieved beyond the state, Stirner explains the suppression of the individual by the state as the domination of the idea that the emancipation of the individual requires the individual to become ‘the Ego‘ and to reconstruct the interactions of the ‘I‘ in the form of a union. But although the ‘Ego‘ retains individuality, it is still, in Marx‘s view, a product of abstract ideas, and the emancipation of the individual should be achieved in material production. Taking the ‘real individuals‘ (die wirklichen Individuen) as a starting point, Marx reveals that Steiner‘s concept of alienation is the materialisation of relations of interaction, and that to achieve interaction between individuals with individuality, a true community must be established.Marx‘s ability to critique and move beyond Stirner stems from the philosophical change he achieved. Stirner reversed Feuerbach‘s syntax by specifying the essence of the class as a predicate of the individual; he replaced Hegel‘s dialectical system by replacing absolute spirit with absolute personality, but ultimately did not complete the critique of the state because of a misplaced method. On the basis of Feuerbach‘s sensual position and Hegel‘s dialectic, Marx founded the materialist conception of history and discovered the root of the illusion of the independence of the state and the essence of the class, providing theoretical support and practical guidance for realizing the emancipation of the individual.