File: secG6.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 13.4-1
links: PTS
area: main
in suites: squeeze, wheezy
size: 24,760 kB
ctags: 640
sloc: makefile: 27
file content (547 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 37,329 bytes
parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
<html>
<head>

<title>G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner?</title>

</head>
<body>

<h1>G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner?</h1>
<p>
To some extent, Stirner's work <b>The Ego and Its Own</b> is like a Rorschach
test. Depending on the reader's psychology, he or she can interpret it in
drastically different ways. Hence, a few have tried to use Stirner's ideas to 
defend capitalism while others have used them to argue for anarcho-syndicalism. 
For example, many in the anarchist movement in Glasgow, Scotland, took Stirner's 
<i>"Union of Egoists"</i> literally as the basis for their anarcho-syndicalist 
organising in the 1940s and beyond. Similarly, we discover the noted anarchist 
historian Max Nettlau stating that <I>"[o]n reading Stirner, I maintain that 
he cannot be interpreted except in a socialist sense."</i> [<b>A Short History 
of Anarchism</b>, p. 55] In this section of the FAQ, we will indicate why, in 
our view, the latter, syndicalistic, interpretation of egoism is far more 
appropriate than the capitalistic one. 
</p><p>
It should be noted, before continuing, that Stirner's work has had a
bigger impact on individualist anarchism than social anarchism. Benjamin
Tucker and many of his comrades embraced egoism when they became aware of 
<b>The Ego and Its Own</b> (a development which provoked a split in 
individualist circles which, undoubtedly, contributed to its decline). 
However, his influence was not limited to individualist anarchism. As 
John P. Clark notes, Stirner <i>"has also been seen as a significant
figure by figures who are more in the mainstream of the anarchist tradition.
Emma Goldman, for example, combines an acceptance of many of the principles
of anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism with a strong emphasis on
individuality and personal uniqueness. The inspiration for this latter part
of her outlook comes from thinkers like . . . Stirner. Herbert Read has
commented on the value of Stirner's defence of individuality."</i> [<b>Max
Stirner's Egoism</b>, p. 90] Daniel Gurin's classic introduction to 
anarchism gives significant space to the German egoist, arguing he 
<i>"rehabilitated the individual at a time when the philosophical field 
was dominated by Hegelian anti-individualism and most reformers in the 
social field had been led by the misdeeds of bourgeois egotism to stress
its opposite"</i> and pointed to <i>"the boldness and scope of his thought."</i> 
[<b>Anarchism</b>, p. 27] From meeting anarchists in Glasgow during the 
Second World War, long-time anarchist activist and artist Donald Rooum 
likewise combined Stirner and anarcho-communism. In America, the short-lived
Situationist influenced group <i>"For Ourselves"</i> produced the inspired
<b>The Right to Be Greedy: Theses on the Practical Necessity of Demanding
Everything</b>, a fusion of Marx and Stirner which proclaimed a <i>"communist
egoism"</i> based on the awareness that greed <i>"in its fullest sense is 
the <b>only possible</b> basis of communist society."</i>
</p><p>
It is not hard to see why so many people are influenced by Stirner's work.
It is a classic, full of ideas and a sense of fun which is lacking in many 
political writers. For many, it is only known through the criticism Marx 
and Engels subjected it too in their book <b>The German Ideology</b>. As 
with their later attacks on Proudhon and Bakunin, the two Germans did not 
accurately reflect the ideas they were attacking and, in the case of 
Stirner, they made it their task to make them appear ridiculous and 
preposterous. That they took so much time and energy to do so suggests 
that Stirner's work is far more important and difficult to refute than their 
notoriously misleading diatribe suggests. That in itself should prompt interest 
in his work.
</p><p>
As will become clear from our discussion, social anarchists have much to gain 
from understanding Stirner's ideas and applying what is useful in them. While
some may object to our attempt to place egoism and communism together, pointing
out that Stirner rejected "communism". Quite! Stirner did not subscribe to 
libertarian communism, because it did not exist when he was writing and so he
was directing his critique against the various forms of <b>state</b> communism which
did. Moreover, this does not mean that anarcho-communists and others may not find
his work of use to them. And Stirner would have approved, for nothing could be 
more foreign to his ideas than to limit what an individual considers to be in 
their best interest. Unlike the narrow and self-defeating "egoism" of, say, Ayn 
Rand, Stirner did not prescribe what was and was not in a person's self-interest. 
He did not say you should act in certain ways because he preferred it, he did 
not redefine selfishness to allow most of bourgeois morality to remain intact. 
Rather he urged the individual to think for themselves and seek their own path. 
Not for Stirner the grim "egoism" of "selfishly" living a life determined by 
some guru and which only that authority figure would approve of. True egoism 
is not parroting what Stirner wrote and agreeing with everything he expounded. 
Nothing could be more foreign to Stirner's work than to invent "Stirnerism."
As Donald Rooum put it:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"I am happy to be called a Stirnerite anarchist, provided 'Stirnerite' means
one who agrees with Stirner's general drift, not one who agrees with Stirner's
every word. Please judge my arguments on their merits, not on the merits of
Stirner's arguments, and not by the test of whether I conform to Stirner."</i> 
[<i>"Anarchism and Selfishness"</i>,  pp. 251-9, <b>The Raven</b>, no. 3, p. 259fn]
</blockquote></p><p>
With that in mind, we will summarise Stirner's main arguments and indicate
why social anarchists have been, and should be, interested in his ideas. Saying
that, John P. Clark presents a sympathetic and useful social anarchist critique 
of his work in <b>Max Stirner's Egoism</b>. Unless otherwise indicated all quotes 
are from Stirner's <b>The Ego and Its Own</b>. 
</p><p>
So what is Stirner all about? Simply put, he is an Egoist, which means
that he considers self-interest to be the root cause of an individual's
every action, even when he or she is apparently doing "altruistic"
actions. Thus: <i>"I am everything to myself and I do everything <b>on my
account</b>."</i>  Even love is an example of selfishness, <i>"because 
love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it 
pleases me."</i> He urges others to follow him and <i>"take courage now to 
really make <b>yourselves</b> the central point and the main thing altogether."</i> 
As for other people, he sees them purely as a means for self-enjoyment, a 
self-enjoyment which is mutual: <i>"For me you are nothing but my food, even 
as I am fed upon and turned to use by you. We have only one relation to each 
other, that of <b>usableness,</b> of utility, of use."</i> [p. 162, p. 291 and 
pp. 296-7]
</p><p>
For Stirner, all individuals are unique (<i>"My flesh is not their flesh, my
mind is not their mind,"</i>) and should reject any attempts to restrict or 
deny their uniqueness: <i>"To be looked upon as a mere <b>part,</b> part of 
society, the individual cannot bear -- because he is <b>more</b>; his
uniqueness puts from it this limited conception."</i> Individuals, in order 
to maximise their uniqueness, must become aware of the <b>real</b> reasons 
for their actions. In other words they must become conscious, not unconscious, 
egoists. An unconscious, or involuntary, egoist is one <i>"who is always 
looking after his own and yet does not count himself as the highest being, 
who serves only himself and at the same time always thinks he is serving a 
higher being, who knows nothing higher than himself and yet is infatuated 
about something higher."</i> [p. 138, p. 265 and p. 36] In contrast, egoists 
are aware that they act purely out of self-interest, and if they support a 
"higher being," it is not because it is a noble thought but because it will 
benefit them.
</p><p>
Stirner himself, however, has no truck with "higher beings." Indeed, with
the aim of concerning himself purely with his own interests, he attacks
all "higher beings," regarding them as a variety of what he calls <i>"spooks,"</i> 
or ideas to which individuals sacrifice themselves and by which they are 
dominated. First amongst these is the abstraction <i>"Man"</i>, into which
all unique individuals are submerged and lost. As he put it, <i>"liberalism 
is a religion because it separates my essence from me and sets it above me, 
because it exalts 'Man' to the same extent as any other religion does to God 
. . . it sets me beneath Man."</i> Indeed, he <i>"who is infatuated with 
<b>Man</b> leaves persons out of account so far as that infatuation 
extends, and floats in an ideal, sacred interest. <b>Man</b>, you see, is 
not a person, but an ideal, a spook."</i> [p. 176 and p.79]  Among the 
many <i>"spooks"</i> Stirner attacks are such notable aspects of capitalist
life as private property, the division of labour, the state, religion, and 
(at times) society itself. We will discuss Stirner's critique of capitalism 
before moving onto his vision of an egoist society and how it relates to 
social anarchism. 
</p><p>
For the egoist, private property is a spook which <i>"lives by the grace of
<b>law</b>"</i> and it <i>"becomes 'mine' only by effect of the law"</i>. In 
other words, private property exists purely <i>"through the <b>protection of
the State,</b> through the State's grace."</i> Recognising its need for state 
protection, Stirner is also aware that <i>"[i]t need not make any difference 
to the 'good citizens' who protects them and their principles, whether an 
absolute King or a constitutional one, a republic, if only they are protected. 
And what is their principle, whose protector they always 'love'?  Not that of
labour"</i>, rather it is <i>"<b>interesting-bearing possession</b> . . . 
<b>labouring capital</b>, therefore . . . labour certainly, yet little or
none at all of one's own, but labour of capital and of the -- subject labourers."</i> 
[p. 251, p. 114, p. 113 and p. 114] 
<p></p>
As can be seen from capitalist support for fascism, Stirner was correct -- as 
long as a regime supports capitalist interests, the 'good citizens' (including 
many on the so-called "libertarian" right)) will support it. Stirner sees that 
not only does private property require state protection, it also leads to 
exploitation and oppression. As noted in <a href="secD10.html">section D.10</a>, 
like subsequent anarchists like Kropotkin, Stirner attacked the division of 
labour resulting from private property for its deadening effects on the ego 
and individuality of the worker:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"When everyone is to cultivate himself into man, condemning a man to 
<b>machine-like labour</b> amounts to the same thing as slavery . . . 
Every labour is to have the intent that the man be satisfied. Therefore he 
must become a <b>master</b> in it too, be able to perform it as a totality. 
He who in a pin-factory only puts on heads, only draws the wire, works, as 
it were mechanically, like a machine; he remains half-trained, does not 
become a master: his labour cannot <b>satisfy</b> him, it can only 
<b>fatigue</b> him. His labour is nothing by itself, has no object 
<b>in itself,</b> is nothing complete in itself; he labours only into 
another's hands, and is <b>used</b> (exploited) by this other."</i> [p. 121]
</p><p></blockquote>
Stirner had nothing but contempt for those who defended property in terms 
of "natural rights" and opposed theft and taxation with a passion because 
it violates said rights. <i>"Rightful, or legitimate property of another,"</i>
he stated, <i>"will by only that which <b>you</b> are content to recognise 
as such. If your content ceases, then this property has lost legitimacy for
you, and you will laugh at absolute right to it."</i> After all, <i>"what 
well-founded objection could be made against theft"</i> [p. 278 and p. 251]
He was well aware that inequality was only possible as long as the masses
were convinced of the sacredness of property. In this way, the majority 
end up without property:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Property in the civic sense means <b>sacred</b> property, such that I must 
<b>respect</b> your property . . . Be it ever so little, if one only has 
somewhat of his own - to wit, a <b>respected</b> property: The more such 
owners . . . the more 'free people and good patriots' has the State. 
</p><p>
"Political liberalism, like everything religious, counts on <b>respect</b>, 
humaneness, the virtues of love . . . For in practice people respect nothing, 
and everyday the small possessions are bought up again by greater proprietors, 
and the 'free people' change into day labourers."</i> [p. 248] 
</p><p></blockquote>
Thus free competition <i>"is not 'free,' because I lack the <b>things</b> for 
competition."</i> Due to this basic inequality of  wealth (of "things"), <i>"[u]nder 
the <b>regime</b> of the commonality the labourers always fall into the hands of the 
possessors . . . of the capitalists, therefore. The labourer cannot <b>realise</b>
on his labour to the extent of the value that it has for the customer."</i> [p. 262
and p. 115] In other words, the working class is exploited by the capitalists and 
landlords.
</p><p>
Moreover, it is the exploitation of labour which is the basis of the state, 
for the state <i>"rests on the <b>slavery of labour.</b> If <b>labour becomes 
free</b>, the State is lost."</i> Without surplus value to feed off, a state 
could not exist. For Stirner, the state is the greatest threat to his 
individuality: <i>"<b>I</b> am free in <b>no</b> State."</i> This is because the 
state claims to be sovereign over a given area, while, for Stirner, only the 
ego can be sovereign over itself and that which it uses (its <i>"property"</i>): 
<i>"I am my <b>own</b> only when I am master of myself."</i> Thus the state
<i>"is not thinkable without lordship and servitude (subjection); for the
State must will to be the lord of all that it embraces."</i> Stirner also
warned against the illusion in thinking that political liberty means that the
state need not be a cause of concern for <i>"[p]olitical liberty means that the 
<b>polis</b>, the State, is free; . . . not, therefore, that I am free of the 
State. . . It does not mean <b>my</b> liberty, but the liberty of a power that 
rules and subjugates me; it means that one of my <b>despots</b> . . . is free."</i> 
[p. 116, p. 226, p. 169, p. 195 and p. 107]
</p><p>
Therefore Stirner urges insurrection against all forms of authority and 
<b>dis</b>-respect for property. For <i>"[i]f man reaches the point of losing 
respect for property, everyone will have property, as all slaves become free men 
as soon as they no longer respect the master as master."</i> And in order for 
labour to become free, all must have <i>"property."</i> <i>"The poor become free 
and proprietors only when they <b>rise.</b>"</i> Thus, <i>"[i]f we want no longer 
to leave the land to the landed proprietors, but to appropriate it to ourselves, 
we unite ourselves to this end, form a union, a <b>socit</b>, that makes 
<b>itself</b> proprietor . . . we can drive them out of many another property 
yet, in order to make it <b>our</b> property, the property of the -- 
<b>conquerors</b>."</i> Thus property <i>"deserves the attacks of the Communists
and Proudhon: it is untenable, because the civic proprietor is in truth 
nothing but a propertyless man, one who is everywhere <b>shut out</b>.
Instead of owning the world, as he might, he does not own even the paltry 
point on which he turns around."</i> [p. 258, p. 260, p. 249 and pp. 248-9]
</p><p>
Stirner recognises the importance of self-liberation and the way that
authority often exists purely through its acceptance by the governed. As
he argues, <i>"no thing is sacred of itself, but my <b>declaring it sacred,</b> 
by my declaration, my judgement, my bending the knee; in short, by my 
conscience."</i> It is from this worship of what society deems <i>"sacred"</i> 
that individuals must liberate themselves in order to discover their true 
selves. And, significantly, part of this process of liberation involves 
the destruction of <b>hierarchy.</b> For Stirner, <i>"Hierarchy is
domination of thoughts, domination of mind!,"</i> and this means that we 
are <i>"kept down by those who are supported by thoughts."</i> [p. 72 and p. 74] 
That is, by our own willingness to not question authority and the sources of 
that authority, such as private property and the state:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Proudhon calls property 'robbery' (<b>le vol</b>) But alien property -- 
and he is talking of this alone -- is not less existent by renunciation, 
cession, and humility; it is a <b>present</b>. Who so sentimentally call 
for compassion as a poor victim of robbery, when one is just a foolish, 
cowardly giver of presents? Why here again put the fault on others as if 
they were robbing us, while we ourselves do bear the fault in leaving the 
others unrobbed? The poor are to blame for there being rich men."</i> [p. 315]
</blockquote></p><p>
For those, like modern-day "libertarian" capitalists, who regard "profit"
as the key to "selfishness," Stirner has nothing but contempt. Because
"greed" is just one part of the ego, and to spend one's life pursuing only
that part is to deny all other parts. Stirner called such pursuit 
<i>"self-sacrificing,"</i> or a <i>"one-sided, unopened, narrow egoism,"</i> 
which leads to the ego being possessed by one aspect of itself. For <i>"he who 
ventures everything else for <b>one thing,</b> one object, one will, one passion
. . . is ruled by a passion to which he brings the rest as sacrifices."</i> [p. 76]
</p><p>
For the true egoist, capitalists are <i>"self-sacrificing"</i> in this
sense, because they are driven only by profit. In the end, their behaviour
is just another form of self-denial, as the worship of money leads them to
slight other aspects of themselves such as empathy and critical thought
(the bank balance becomes the rule book). A society based on such "egoism"
ends up undermining the egos which inhabit it, deadening one's own and
other people's individuality and so reducing the vast potential "utility"
of others to oneself. In addition, the drive for profit is not even based
on self-interest, it is forced upon the individual by the workings of the
market (an alien authority) and results in labour <i>"claim[ing] all our time
and toil,"</i> leaving no time for the individual <i>"to take comfort in himself
as the unique."</i> [pp. 268-9]
</p><p>
Stirner also turns his analysis to "socialism" and "communism," and his
critique is as powerful as the one he directs against capitalism. This
attack, for some, gives his work an appearance of being pro-capitalist,
while, as indicated above, it is not. Stirner did attack socialism, but he
(rightly) attacked <b>state</b> socialism, not libertarian socialism, which did
not really exist at that time (the only well known anarchist work at the
time was Proudhon's <b>What is Property?</b>, published in 1840 and this work
obviously could not fully reflect the developments within anarchism that
were to come). He also indicated why moralistic (or altruistic) socialism 
is doomed to failure, and laid the foundations of the theory that socialism 
will work only on the basis of egoism (communist-egoism, as it is sometimes 
called). Stirner correctly pointed out that much of what is called socialism 
was nothing but warmed up liberalism, and as such ignores the individual: 
<i>"Whom does the liberal look upon as his equal? Man! . . ., In other words, 
he sees in you, not <b>you</b>, but the <b>species.</b>"</i> A socialism 
that ignores the individual consigns itself to being state capitalism, 
nothing more. "Socialists" of this school forget that "society" is made up 
of individuals and that it is individuals who work, think, love, play and 
enjoy themselves. Thus: <i>"That society is no ego at all, which could give, 
bestow, or grant, but an instrument or means, from which we may derive benefit
. . . of this the socialists do not think, because they -- as liberals -- are 
imprisoned in the religious principle and zealously aspire after -- a sacred 
society, such as the State was hitherto."</i> [p. 123]
</p><p>
Of course, for the egoist libertarian communism can be just as much an
option as any other socio-political regime. As Stirner stressed, egoism 
<i>"is not hostile to the tenderest of cordiality . . . nor of socialism: 
in short, it is not inimical to any interest: it excludes no interest. It 
simply runs counter to un-interest and to the uninteresting: it is not 
against love but against sacred love . . . not against socialists, but 
against the sacred socialists."</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1,
p. 23] After all, if it aids the individual then Stirner had no more 
problems with libertarian communism that, say, rulers or exploitation. 
Yet this position does not imply that egoism tolerates the latter. Stirner's
argument is, of course, that those who are subject to either have an interest 
in ending both and should unite with those in the same position to end it 
rather than appealing to the good will of those in power. As such, it goes 
without saying that those who find in egoism fascistic tendencies are 
fundamentally wrong. Fascism, like any class system, aims for the elite to 
rule and provides various spooks for the masses to ensure this (the nation, 
tradition, property, and so on). Stirner, on the other hand, urges an universal 
egoism rather than one limited to just a few. In other words, he would wish 
those subjected to fascistic domination to reject such spooks and to unite 
and rise against those oppressing them:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Well, who says that every one can do everything? What are you there
for, pray, you who do not need to put up with everything? Defend 
yourself, and no one will do anything to you! He who would break
your will has to do with you, and is your <b>enemy</b>. Deal with 
him as such. If there stand behind you for your protection some
millions more, then you are an imposing power and will have an 
easy victory."</i> [p. 197]
</blockquote></p><p>
That Stirner's desire for individual autonomy becomes transferred into 
support for rulership for the few and subjection for the many by many of
his critics simply reflects the fact we are conditioned by class society 
to accept such rule as normal -- and hope that our masters will be kind 
and subscribe to the same spooks they inflict on their subjects. It is 
true, of course, that a narrow "egoism" would accept and seek such 
relationships of domination but such a perspective is not Stirner's. 
This can be seen from how Stirner's egoist vision could fit with social 
anarchist ideas.
</p><p>
The key to understanding the connection lies in Stirner's idea of the <i>"union
of egoists,"</i> his proposed alternative mode of organising society. 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 <i>"truces"</i> 
in the <i>"war of all against all"</i>). These <i>"truces"</i> Stirner termed 
<i><b>"Unions of Egoists."</i></b> They are the means by which egoists could, 
firstly, <i>"annihilate"</i> the state, and secondly, destroy its creature, 
private property, since they would <i>"multiply the individual's means and 
secure his assailed property."</i> [p. 258] 
</p><p>
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 <i>"care best for their welfare if 
they <b>unite</b> with others."</i> [p. 309] The unions, unlike the state, 
exist to ensure what Stirner calls <i>"intercourse,"</i> or <i>"union"</i> between 
individuals. 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. [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>,  
vol. 1, p. 25] These illustrate the kinds of relationships that maximise  
an individual's self-enjoyment, pleasure, freedom, and individuality, as  
well as ensuring that those involved sacrifice nothing while belonging  
to them. Such associations are based on mutuality and a free and spontaneous 
co-operation between equals. As Stirner puts it, <i>"intercourse is mutuality, 
it is the action, the <b>commercium,</b> of individuals."</i> [p. 218] Its 
aim is <i>"pleasure"</i> and <i>"self-enjoyment."</i> Thus Stirner sought
a broad egoism, one which appreciated others and their uniqueness, and so
criticised the narrow egoism of people who forgot the wealth others are:
</p><p><blockquote>
<i>"But that would be a man who does not know and cannot appreciate any
of the delights emanating from an interest taken in others, from the 
consideration shown to others. That would be a man bereft of innumerable
pleasures, a wretched character . . . would he not be a wretched egoist,
rather than a genuine Egoist? . . . The person who loves a human being
is, by virtue of that love, a wealthier man that someone else who loves
no one."</i> [<b>No Gods, No Masters</b>, vol. 1, p. 23]
</blockquote>
</p><p> 
In order to ensure that those involved do not sacrifice any of their 
uniqueness and freedom, the contracting parties have to have roughly  
the same bargaining power and the association created must be based  
on self-management (i.e. equality of power). Only under self-management 
can all participate in the affairs of the union and express their 
individuality. Otherwise, we have to assume that some of the egoists 
involved will stop being egoists and will allow themselves to be 
dominated by another, which is unlikely. As Stirner himself argued: 
<blockquote><i> 
"But is an association, wherein most members allow themselves to be 
lulled as regards their most natural and most obvious interests, actually 
an Egoist's association? Can they really be 'Egoists' who have banded 
together when one is a slave or a serf of the other?. . . 
</p><p> 
"Societies wherein the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the 
rest, where, say, some may satisfy their need for rest thanks to the fact 
that the rest must work to the point of exhaustion, and can lead a life 
of ease because others live in misery and perish of hunger, or indeed who
live a life of dissipation because others are foolish enough to live in 
indigence, etc., such societies . . .  [are] more of a religious society,
a communion held as sacrosanct by right, by law and by all the pomp and
circumstance of the courts."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 24] 
</blockquote></p><p> 
Therefore, egoism's revolt against all hierarchies that restrict the ego  
logically leads to the end of authoritarian social relationships, particularly  
those associated with private property and the state. Given that capitalism  
is  marked by extensive differences in bargaining power outside its  
"associations" (i.e. firms) and power within these "associations" (i.e.  
the worker/boss hierarchy), from an egoist point of view it is in the  
self-interest of those subjected to such relationships to get rid of them  
and replace them with unions based on mutuality, free association, and  
self-management. Ultimately, Stirner stresses that it is in the workers' 
<b>self-interest</b> to free themselves from both state and capitalist 
oppression. Sounding like an anarcho-syndicalist, Stirner recognised the 
potential for strike action as a means of self-liberation:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The labourers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once 
become thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing could withstand them; 
they would only have to stop labour, regard the product of labour as theirs, 
and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labour disturbances which show themselves 
here and there."</i> [p. 116] 
</blockquote></p><p> 
Given the holistic and egalitarian nature of the union of egoists, it  
can be seen that it shares little with the so-called free agreements of 
capitalism (in particular wage labour). The hierarchical structure of  
capitalist firms hardly produces associations in which the individual's  
experiences can be compared to those involved in friendship or play, nor  
do they involve equality. An essential aspect of the <i>"union of egoists"</i>  
for Stirner was such groups should be "owned" by their members, not the  
members by the group. That points to a <b>libertarian</b> form of organisation  
within these "unions" (i.e. one based on equality and participation), <b>not</b>  
a hierarchical one. If you have no say in how a group functions (as in wage  
slavery, where workers have the "option" of "love it or leave it") then you  
can hardly be said to own it, can you? Indeed, Stirner argues, for <i>
"[o]nly in the union can you assert yourself as unique, because the union 
does not possess you, but you possess it or make it of use to you."</i> [p. 312]  
</p><p>
Thus, Stirner's <i>"union of egoists"</i> cannot be compared to the employer-employee 
contract as the employees cannot be said to "own" the organisation resulting from the 
contract (nor do they own  themselves during work time, having sold their labour/liberty 
to the boss in  return for wages -- see <a href="secB4.html">section B.4</a>). Only 
within a participatory association  can you <i>"assert"</i> yourself freely and subject 
your maxims, and association, to your <i>"ongoing criticism"</i> -- in capitalist 
contracts you can do both only with your bosses' permission. 
</p><p> 
And by the same token, capitalist contracts do not involve "leaving each other  
alone" (a la "anarcho"-capitalism). No boss will "leave alone" the workers in  
his factory, nor will a landowner "leave alone" a squatter on land he owns 
but does not use. Stirner rejects the narrow concept of "property" as 
private property and recognises the <b>social</b> nature of "property," whose 
use often affects far more people than those who claim to "own" it: <i>"I do 
not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as <b>my</b> 
property, in which I 'respect' nothing. Pray do the like with what you 
call my property!"</i> [p. 248] This view logically leads to the idea of both 
workers' self-management and grassroots community control (as will be discussed 
more fully in <a href="secIcon.html">section I</a>) as those affected by an 
activity will take a direct interest in it and not let "respect" for "private" 
property allow them to be oppressed by others. 
</p><p> 
Moreover, egoism (self-interest) must lead to self-management and mutual  
aid (solidarity), for by coming to agreements based on mutual respect and  
social equality, we ensure non-hierarchical relationships. If I dominate  
someone, then in all likelihood I will be dominated in turn. By removing  
hierarchy and domination, the ego is free to experience and utilise the  
full potential of others. As Kropotkin argued in <b>Mutual Aid</b>, 
individual freedom and social co-operation are not only compatible but, 
when united, create the most productive conditions for all individuals 
within society. 
</p><p>
Stirner reminds the social anarchist that communism and collectivism are
not sought for their own sake but to ensure individual freedom and enjoyment.
As he argued: <i>"But should competition some day disappear, because concerted 
effort will have been acknowledged as more beneficial than isolation, then will 
not every single individual inside the associations be equally egoistic and 
out for his own interests?"</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 22] This is because 
competition has its drawbacks, for <i>"[r]estless acquisition does not let 
us take breath, take a calm <b>enjoyment</b>. We do not get the comfort of 
our possessions. . . Hence it is at any rate helpful that we come to an 
agreement about <b>human</b> labours that they may not, as under competition, 
claim all our time and toil."</i> [p. 268] In other words, in the market 
only the market is free not those subject to its pressures and necessities -- 
an important truism which defenders of capitalism always ignore.
</p><p>
Forgetting about the individual was, for Stirner, the key problem with the forms 
of communism he was familiar with and so this <i>"organisation of labour touches 
only such labours as others can do for us . . . the rest remain egoistic, because 
no one can in your stead elaborate your musical compositions, carry out your 
projects of painting, etc.; nobody can replace Raphael's labours. The latter are 
labours of a unique person, which only he is competent to achieve."</i> He went 
on to ask <i>"for whom is time to be gained [by association]? For what does man 
require more time than is necessary to refresh his wearied powers of labour? Here 
Communism is silent."</i> Unlike egoism, which answers: <i>"To take comfort in 
himself as unique, after he has done his part as man!"</i> In other words, 
competition <i>"has a continued existence"</i> because <i>"all do not attend 
to <b>their affair</b> and come to an <b>understanding</b> with each other about 
it."</i> [p. 269 and p. 275] As can be seen from Chapter 8 of Kropotkin's 
<b>Conquest of Bread</b> (<i>"The Need for Luxury"</i>), communist-anarchism 
builds upon this insight, arguing that communism is required to ensure that
all individuals have the time and energy to pursue their own unique interests 
and dreams (see <a href="secI4.html">section I.4</a>).
</p><p>
Stirner notes that socialising property need not result in genuine
freedom if it is not rooted in individual use and control. He states <i>"the 
lord is proprietor. Choose then whether you want to be lord, or whether society 
shall be!"</i> He notes that many communists of his time attacked alienated
property but did not stress that the aim was to ensure access for all individuals.
<i>"Instead of transforming the alien into own,"</i> Stirner noted, <i>"they 
play impartial and ask only that all property be left to a third party, such 
as human society. They revindicate the alien not in their own name, but in 
a third party's"</i> Ultimately, of course, under libertarian communism it is
not "society" which uses the means of life but individuals and associations
of individuals. As Stirner stressed: <i>"Neither God nor Man ('human society') 
is proprietor, but the individual."</i> [p. 313, p. 315 and p. 251] This is 
why social anarchists have always stressed self-management -- only that can 
bring collectivised property into the hands of those who utilise it. Stirner 
places the focus on decision making back where it belongs -- in the individuals 
who make up a given community rather than abstractions like "society."
</p><p>
Therefore Stirner's union of egoists has strong connections with social
anarchism's desire for a society based on freely federated individuals,
co-operating as equals. His central idea of "property" -- that which is
used by the ego -- is an important concept for social anarchism because
it stresses that hierarchy develops when we let ideas and organisations
own us rather than vice versa. A participatory anarchist community will be
made up of individuals who must ensure that it remains their "property"
and be under their control; hence the importance of decentralised,
confederal organisations which ensure that control. A free society must be
organised in such a way to ensure the free and full development of
individuality and maximise the pleasure to be gained from individual
interaction and activity. Lastly, Stirner indicates that mutual aid and
equality are based not upon an abstract morality but upon self-interest,
both for defence against hierarchy and for the pleasure of co-operative
intercourse between unique individuals. 
</p><p>
Stirner demonstrates brilliantly how abstractions and fixed ideas
(<i>"spooks"</i>) influence the very way we think, see ourselves, and act. He
shows how hierarchy has its roots within our own minds, in how we view the
world. He offers a powerful defence of individuality in an authoritarian
and alienated world, and places subjectivity at the centre of any
revolutionary project, where it belongs. Finally, he reminds us that a
free society must exist in the interests of all, and must be based upon
the self-fulfilment, liberation and enjoyment of the individual.</p>

</body>
</html>