Egoist Anarchism

[Catmatic Leftist]

What is egoist anarchism? What is RevLeft's verdict on Egoist Anarchism? Would espousing such views get one restricted? What is it all about? (I'm not an egoist anarchist; I'm just curious about it)

[nuisance]

i consider myself as somewhat of an egoist/individualist anarchist.
Egoist anarchism/anarchy is heavily influenced by Max Stirners idea of egoism, which sees humans as selfinterested actors. The individual is the revolutionary subject who has to have a personal insurrection before coming to daggers with the existent, meaning the individual is central to the view of the world and how it is to be changed, in order to create a society where the only force preventing a person from fulfilling their desire is their self. A free society can only be composed of free individuals, who alligned themselves with others in the process, and have shaken off the 'spooks' of civil society. Spooks are ideas that are seen to be above the individual, for example morality and property.

Historically some anarcho-syndicalists have agreed with this line but currently this has been taken up more so by anarchists of an insurrectionary and post-leftist persuasion.

[∞]

Its kind of philosophical notion adopted by Stirner and Proudhon. It has some kind of emphasis on the rights of the individual. In a way it differs quite a bit from Rousseau's General Will. Essentially it is just Individualist Anarchism.



Wikipedia

Individualist anarchism refers to several traditions of thought within the anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist) movement that emphasize the individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual) and his or her will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_%28philosophy%29) over external determinants such as groups, society, traditions, and ideological systems.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism#cite_note-ryner-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism#cite_note-tucker-1) Individualist anarchism is not a single philosophy but refers to a group of individualistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism) philosophies that sometimes are in conflict. From there it expanded through Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_individualist_anarchism) and the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism_in_the_United_States). Benjamin R. Tucker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_R._Tucker), a famous 19th century individualist anarchist, held that "if the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism#cite_note-2)

Its trust-est form isn't very much compatible with more left-wing communal forms of Anarchism per-say. Ancaps always seem to give agruments based on these type of notions, I disagree because their concept of "Individual will" is just subservience to capital.

[Bronco]

I don't know much about it but it seems a bit of a fucked up theory to me, basically advocating a survival of the fittest world where whatever someone has the might to do, they have the right to do

[∞]

I don't know much about it but it seems a bit of a fucked up theory to me, basically advocating a survival of the fittest world where whatever someone has the might to do, they have the right to do

Thats akin saying communists want everyone to be equal or that they don't believe in any form of property. Egoism is just the idea that collectivism is repressive, whether you agree with that or not. Its not Social Darwinism.

[Kiev Communard]

Personally I believe that the egoist anarchism is somewhat flawed due to its methodological weakness, as it emphasizes abstract individual over collectivity, which may lead to it being hijacked by some bourgeois-liberal types. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there is some overlapping between Marxian notions of alienation and commodity fetishism, Marx's critique of division of labour as degrading individuals, and the conception of modern State and civil society as a "false collectivity", on the one hand, and similar Stirnerian ideas, even if the latter are voiced in rather different form, and although Marx subjected Stirner to relentless critique.

Besides, I would say that a widespread view of Stirnerian ideas as pro-capitalist is basically false, as his criticism of idea of "absolute", "sacred" private property (which is the basis of all pro-capitalist ideologies) indicates Stirner's anti-capitalist orientation, while his denunciation of "ethical socialism" and various forms of state socialist doctrines bear a remarkable similarity with Marxian criticism of "True Socialists" with their sentimental and moralistic ideas and of Louis Blanc, this real father of the 20th social democracy, with his conception of the "servant State" that would somehow "establish socialism" through welfare programs and profit sharing.

[hatzel]

Essentially it is just Individualist Anarchism.

That might be what we like to call a gross simplification. Considering individualist anarchists often seem to have a thing about asserting property rights, whilst Stirner negated the very concept, we definitely can't equate egoism with individualism. Perhaps we could call it a form of individualist anarchism (which also doesn't always make complete sense, as some egoists have advocated somewhat communist forms of anarchism, claiming that this is in the individual's best interest, or that egoists are even required for a communist society to function), but to say that egoist anarchism is the same as individualist anarchism is wide of the mark. There is a pretty obvious distinction between the two insofar as egoist anarchism is specifically based on a concept of the individual, or, more correctly, of the ego, as expounded by Stirner, which is not a necessity in individualist anarchism, though is something forwarded.

[Tim Cornelis]

I am influenced very much by egoism, but I cannot consider myself an egoist because I'm too empathic.

Egoism and collectivism is not necessarily mutually exclusive. If the self-interest of the individual coincides with that of others they'll form a group (In Stirnerite terminology a Union of Egoists) which can be seen as a commune.

Communism, I believe, is not only in the self-interest of the "collective" but also in that of the individual. In that sense every anarchist, socialist, etc. is somewhat of an egoist.

[nuisance]

egoism isn't opposed to communism, since it wants a society composed of individuals free from coercion, so communism is perfectly inline with egoism. it is not some sort of surivival of fittest social darwinism bullshit.

[Bronco]

egoism isn't opposed to communism, since it wants a society composed of individuals free from coercion, so communism is perfectly inline with egoism. it is not some sort of surivival of fittest social darwinism bullshit.

Perhaps I need to do some more reading then but I thought Stirner was opposed to Communism and didnt Marx & Engels criticise and mock egoism in The German Idealogy?

[Ret]

On Stirner's influence -
intro to an article by historian D. McLellan;

A summary of Stirner's ideas and their strong impact on his fellow Young Hegelians. McLellan asserts that Stirner's influence on Marx has been under-estimated and that he "played a very important role in the development of Marx's thought by detaching him from the influence of Feuerbach", his static materialism and his abstract humanism. Stirner's critique of communism (which Marx considered a caricature) also obliged Marx to refine his own definition. Stirner's concept of the "creative ego" is also said to have influenced Marx's concept of "praxis".
http://libcom.org/history/stirner-feurbach-marx-young-hegelians-david-mclellan
Intro & quote from article by Glaswegian anarchist;

"A short account by a participant of the UK's largest working class anarchist movement (with the possible exception of the better known movement among London's East End Jews); in Glasgow during the first half of the 20th century. The movement contained an unusual combination of Stirnerite egoist and anarcho-syndicalist influences." [...]

"In a certain sense the Glasgow Anarchists of that period made a unique contribution to the broad Anarchist movement in Britain. Most of the comrades could accept the philosophy of Egoism and dovetail it into the Syndicalist tendency within the movement. For my part I was quite strong about this fusion. In fact I think I was a firmer adherent of this school than was Eddie Shaw although, as I say, initially Eddie was the teacher and I was the pupil. Many were admirers of Kropotkin as I was. Kropotkin did of course criticise the philosophy of Egoism. In spite of this, I do not think Kropotkin's `Mutual Aid' really contradicts Stirner's argument. It is at least obvious to me that those who practice mutual aid are in fact the best egoists. This view is not a reconciliation; it is a fusion. Kropotkin is not I, and I am not Kropotkin. Stirner is not I nor am I Stirner. Both are dead: I subdue their arguments if they want to argue. I dominate my thought: I am not its slave. I am neither a Kropotkinite nor a Stirnerite nor any other 'ite' or 'ist'. This, in the main, was the healthy attitude of most of the Glasgow Anarchists of the period." (R. Lynn)
http://libcom.org/history/not-life-story-just-leaf-it-robert-lynn
From another discussion;

"Ret Marut, later to become B. Traven the anarchist novelist, was also in his youth a Stirnerite Individualist anarchist, publishing an anti-capitalist egoist paper for some years - but he wasn't so individualist as to stop him taking part in the Munich Soviet Republic of 1919. Another participant, Gustav Landauer - murdered in the state repression of the Republic - was also apparently influenced by Stirner."

"In its historical context, Stirner's book seems a revolt against the obligations and duties of the bourgeois citizen as it was being imposed in bourgeois society's early phase. The individual despotism of lords and kings is replaced by the authoritarian inclusivity and moral obligation of the bourgeois social contract via political democracy, the state and its laws. His critique of communism - the pre-Marxian Weitling variety - is partly of a kind of 'barracks communism' that submits all to a dull uniformity of effort for the common good of an abstract 'humanity'. Maybe the enduring relevance of these aspects - as critique of the individual's role in both capitalism and state 'communism' - help explain the later appeal of Stirner's egoism to working class Scottish syndicalists. (As linked to on previous page.)
His conclusions are limited - in their advocacy of individualism - but his critique of his times was influential among his peers, including Marx, in its day."
(From a discussion here; http://libcom.org/forums/theory/question-about-max-stirner-16022009)

[hatzel]

I thought Stirner was opposed to Communism

He was openly critical of communism, socialism, liberalism, anarchism...pretty much everybody...for their attempts to make Man into some kind of deity to be feared, and enforce some kind of leveling of society. What we might call 'egoist communism,' that is to say, a potential voluntary communism in the Verein der Egoisten, need not fall into such traps. In fact, some form of voluntary communism would perhaps be a very fitting system for the Verein der Egoisten, if expanded to a society-wide scale; there are some other propositions, the only amongst them that I could personally conceive fitting being entirely non-capitalistic.

It's also worth remembering that Stirner's polemics against communism were written about a decade before the Communist Manifesto, and he'd been dead for a good 30-40 years before anarcho-communism really came into shape. As such, his opposition to communism is the opposition to the communism of his day, and does not, by any stretch of the imagination, necessarily apply today, nor, even, to the communism of Kropotkin. Although Stirner-inspired Lev Chernyi attacked Kropotkin's theories (though many of these were based more on misunderstanding than on what he actually had to say), it is definitely feasible to synthesise the Verein der Egoisten and anarcho-communism, as long as the individual remains free to remove themselves from the commune if they so desire.

As such, Chernyi's criticism may not be fair, as Kropotkin (as far as I remember) saw little if any problem with independent artisans and rural smallholders carrying on uninterrupted, be they engaged with or removed from society.* Chernyi's later criticism of the emerging Soviet Union (I don't have the quote to hand, but I believe he called it 'the greatest tyranny in human history') came from a similar fear; that it forwarded the forceful incorporation of individuals into the communist system. I can assume that Stirner would have had similar criticisms, had he lived to see it, yet anarcho-communism need not follow a similar path of development.

*If Kropotkin himself didn't quite say that, I am absolutely 100% definitely certain that Landauer, influenced by both Stirner and Kropotkin, explicitly defended the right for the individual to remove themselves from society if they so wished, and sought a socio-economic arrangement to facilitate this possibility. This, predictably, was to be realised through 'voluntary union in all that concerns the common good.'

[Old Mole]

I find it very hard to see any relevance in the ethics of other socialists, but then again I am not an anarchist. Why is it important if people are egoists, altruists, etc.?