Egoist vs. individualist anarchism

[hatzel]

Really...what is the difference between these two streams? Or are they synonymous? I'm more than a bit familiar with the writings of Stirner, and the intro to the Wikipedia page on egoist anarchism says:


Egoist anarchism is a school of anarchist thought that originated in the philosophy of Max Stirner, a nineteenth century Hegelian philosopher whose "name appears with familiar regularity in historically-orientated surveys of anarchist thought as one of the earliest and best-known exponents of individualist anarchism."
I'm sure you can see where my confusion comes from. Is egoist anarchism just a subset of individualist anarchism, and would Stirner's writings be considered egoist, individualist or both?

:confused:

[Widerstand]

Stirner managed to completely reduce political and philosophical theory to the only part he could not possible scrap away, "I".

While I think that all or at least most individualist anarchism draws on Stirner, not all do so equally. It appears that Egoist Anarchism is one of the more dogmatic kinds, judging from what little I know.

[ed miliband]

Followers of Stirner like John Henry Mackay were anti-socialist (I believe), while people like Benjamin Tucker were influenced by Stirner but also Proudhon, etc. I suppose the latter would be more accurately described as an 'individualist anarchist' and the former an 'egoist anarchist', but I don't really know how I have come to that conclusion.

I think many 'individualist anarchists' believed in class struggle while the more hardcore Stirnerites rejected the concept of class?

[JazzRemington]

Tucker was originally a follower of the early American individualists, like Spooner. He converted to egoism after translating Stirner's Ego and Its Own.

As far as differences between the two, there aren't much nowadays. Most individualist anarchists subscribe to some of Stirner's ideas but not necessarily all of them. They may have some morality or ethics that wouldn't be considered Egoist. Although I don't think there's anything preventing an Egoist becoming, say, a fascist dictator. Aren't there national socialists who are also Egoists?

[ed miliband]

Tucker was originally a follower of the early American individualists, like Spooner. He converted to egoism after translating Stirner's Ego and Its Own.

As far as differences between the two, there aren't much nowadays. Most individualist anarchists subscribe to some of Stirner's ideas but not necessarily all of them. They may have some morality or ethics that wouldn't be considered Egoist. Although I don't think there's anything preventing an Egoist becoming, say, a fascist dictator. Aren't there national socialists who are also Egoists?

Julius Evola was influenced by Stirner I think, so perhaps.

[hatzel]

...anarchism without adjectives just looks so appealing when all the adjectives mean the same frigging thing :cursing:

[The Douche]

Although I don't think there's anything preventing an Egoist becoming, say, a fascist dictator.

Don't egoists believe in a society based on voluntary agreements between individuals? The state is opposed to this, certainly the fascist conception of state. Fascism openly opposes the individual and seeks its subserviance to the nation (expressed via the state) so how could the two be compatable?