                     G.6 What are the ideas of Max Stirner?

   To some extent, Stirner's work The Ego and Its Own 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 "Union of Egoists" 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 "[o]n reading Stirner, I maintain that he cannot be
   interpreted except in a socialist sense." [A Short History of
   Anarchism, 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.

   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 The Ego and Its Own (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 "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." [Max Stirner's Egoism, p. 90]
   Daniel Gurin's classic introduction to anarchism gives significant
   space to the German egoist, arguing he "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" and
   pointed to "the boldness and scope of his thought." [Anarchism, 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 "For Ourselves" produced the inspired The Right to Be
   Greedy: Theses on the Practical Necessity of Demanding Everything, a
   fusion of Marx and Stirner which proclaimed a "communist egoism" based
   on the awareness that greed "in its fullest sense is the only possible
   basis of communist society."

   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 The German
   Ideology. 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.

   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 state 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:

     "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." ["Anarchism and
     Selfishness", pp. 251-9, The Raven, no. 3, p. 259fn]

   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 Max Stirner's Egoism. Unless
   otherwise indicated all quotes are from Stirner's The Ego and Its Own.

   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 am everything to myself and I do everything on my
   account." Even love is an example of selfishness, "because love makes
   me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases
   me." He urges others to follow him and "take courage now to really make
   yourselves the central point and the main thing altogether." As for
   other people, he sees them purely as a means for self-enjoyment, a
   self-enjoyment which is mutual: "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 usableness, of utility, of use." [p.
   162, p. 291 and pp. 296-7]

   For Stirner, all individuals are unique ("My flesh is not their flesh,
   my mind is not their mind,") and should reject any attempts to restrict
   or deny their uniqueness: "To be looked upon as a mere part, part of
   society, the individual cannot bear -- because he is more; his
   uniqueness puts from it this limited conception." Individuals, in order
   to maximise their uniqueness, must become aware of the real reasons for
   their actions. In other words they must become conscious, not
   unconscious, egoists. An unconscious, or involuntary, egoist is one
   "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." [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.

   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 "spooks," or ideas to which individuals sacrifice themselves and
   by which they are dominated. First amongst these is the abstraction
   "Man", into which all unique individuals are submerged and lost. As he
   put it, "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." Indeed,
   he "who is infatuated with Man leaves persons out of account so far as
   that infatuation extends, and floats in an ideal, sacred interest. Man,
   you see, is not a person, but an ideal, a spook." [p. 176 and p.79]
   Among the many "spooks" 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.

   For the egoist, private property is a spook which "lives by the grace
   of law" and it "becomes 'mine' only by effect of the law". In other
   words, private property exists purely "through the protection of the
   State, through the State's grace." Recognising its need for state
   protection, Stirner is also aware that "[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", rather it is
   "interesting-bearing possession . . . labouring capital, therefore . .
   . labour certainly, yet little or none at all of one's own, but labour
   of capital and of the -- subject labourers." [p. 251, p. 114, p. 113
   and p. 114]

   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 [1]section D.10, 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:

     "When everyone is to cultivate himself into man, condemning a man to
     machine-like labour amounts to the same thing as slavery . . . Every
     labour is to have the intent that the man be satisfied. Therefore he
     must become a master 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 satisfy
     him, it can only fatigue him. His labour is nothing by itself, has
     no object in itself, is nothing complete in itself; he labours only
     into another's hands, and is used (exploited) by this other." [p.
     121]

   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. "Rightful, or legitimate property of
   another," he stated, "will by only that which you 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." After
   all, "what well-founded objection could be made against theft" [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:

     "Property in the civic sense means sacred property, such that I must
     respect your property . . . Be it ever so little, if one only has
     somewhat of his own - to wit, a respected property: The more such
     owners . . . the more 'free people and good patriots' has the State.

     "Political liberalism, like everything religious, counts on respect,
     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."
     [p. 248]

   Thus free competition "is not 'free,' because I lack the things for
   competition." Due to this basic inequality of wealth (of "things"),
   "[u]nder the regime of the commonality the labourers always fall into
   the hands of the possessors . . . of the capitalists, therefore. The
   labourer cannot realise on his labour to the extent of the value that
   it has for the customer." [p. 262 and p. 115] In other words, the
   working class is exploited by the capitalists and landlords.

   Moreover, it is the exploitation of labour which is the basis of the
   state, for the state "rests on the slavery of labour. If labour becomes
   free, the State is lost." Without surplus value to feed off, a state
   could not exist. For Stirner, the state is the greatest threat to his
   individuality: "I am free in no State." 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
   "property"): "I am my own only when I am master of myself." Thus the
   state "is not thinkable without lordship and servitude (subjection);
   for the State must will to be the lord of all that it embraces."
   Stirner also warned against the illusion in thinking that political
   liberty means that the state need not be a cause of concern for
   "[p]olitical liberty means that the polis, the State, is free; . . .
   not, therefore, that I am free of the State. . . It does not mean my
   liberty, but the liberty of a power that rules and subjugates me; it
   means that one of my despots . . . is free." [p. 116, p. 226, p. 169,
   p. 195 and p. 107]

   Therefore Stirner urges insurrection against all forms of authority and
   dis-respect for property. For "[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." And
   in order for labour to become free, all must have "property." "The poor
   become free and proprietors only when they rise." Thus, "[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 socit, that makes itself proprietor . . . we can drive them
   out of many another property yet, in order to make it our property, the
   property of the -- conquerors." Thus property "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 shut out. Instead of owning the world, as he might, he does
   not own even the paltry point on which he turns around." [p. 258, p.
   260, p. 249 and pp. 248-9]

   Stirner recognises the importance of self-liberation and the way that
   authority often exists purely through its acceptance by the governed.
   As he argues, "no thing is sacred of itself, but my declaring it
   sacred, by my declaration, my judgement, my bending the knee; in short,
   by my conscience." It is from this worship of what society deems
   "sacred" that individuals must liberate themselves in order to discover
   their true selves. And, significantly, part of this process of
   liberation involves the destruction of hierarchy. For Stirner,
   "Hierarchy is domination of thoughts, domination of mind!," and this
   means that we are "kept down by those who are supported by thoughts."
   [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:

     "Proudhon calls property 'robbery' (le vol) But alien property --
     and he is talking of this alone -- is not less existent by
     renunciation, cession, and humility; it is a present. 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." [p. 315]

   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 "self-sacrificing," or a "one-sided, unopened, narrow egoism,"
   which leads to the ego being possessed by one aspect of itself. For "he
   who ventures everything else for one thing, one object, one will, one
   passion . . . is ruled by a passion to which he brings the rest as
   sacrifices." [p. 76]

   For the true egoist, capitalists are "self-sacrificing" 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
   "claim[ing] all our time and toil," leaving no time for the individual
   "to take comfort in himself as the unique." [pp. 268-9]

   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 state socialism, not libertarian socialism, which
   did not really exist at that time (the only well known anarchist work
   at the time was Proudhon's What is Property?, 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: "Whom does
   the liberal look upon as his equal? Man! . . ., In other words, he sees
   in you, not you, but the species." 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: "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." [p. 123]

   Of course, for the egoist libertarian communism can be just as much an
   option as any other socio-political regime. As Stirner stressed, egoism
   "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." [No Gods, No Masters, 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:

     "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 enemy. 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."
     [p. 197]

   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.

   The key to understanding the connection lies in Stirner's idea of the
   "union of egoists," 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 "truces" in the "war of all against all").
   These "truces" Stirner termed "Unions of Egoists."
   They are the means by which egoists could, firstly, "annihilate" the
   state, and secondly, destroy its creature, private property, since they
   would "multiply the individual's means and secure his assailed
   property." [p. 258]

   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 "care best for their welfare if
   they unite with others." [p. 309] The unions, unlike the state, exist
   to ensure what Stirner calls "intercourse," or "union" 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. [No Gods, No
   Masters, 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, "intercourse is mutuality, it is the action, the
   commercium, of individuals." [p. 218] Its aim is "pleasure" and
   "self-enjoyment." 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:

     "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." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 23]

   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:

     "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?. .
     .

     "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."
     [Op. Cit., p. 24]

   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' self-interest 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:

     "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." [p.
     116]

   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 "union of
   egoists" for Stirner was such groups should be "owned" by their
   members, not the members by the group. That points to a libertarian
   form of organisation within these "unions" (i.e. one based on equality
   and participation), not 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 "[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." [p. 312]

   Thus, Stirner's "union of egoists" 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 [2]section B.4). Only within a participatory
   association can you "assert" yourself freely and subject your maxims,
   and association, to your "ongoing criticism" -- in capitalist contracts
   you can do both only with your bosses' permission.

   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 social
   nature of "property," whose use often affects far more people than
   those who claim to "own" it: "I do not step shyly back from your
   property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I 'respect'
   nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!" [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
   [3]section I) 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.

   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 Mutual Aid, individual freedom and social co-operation are
   not only compatible but, when united, create the most productive
   conditions for all individuals within society.

   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: "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?" [Op.
   Cit., p. 22] This is because competition has its drawbacks, for
   "[r]estless acquisition does not let us take breath, take a calm
   enjoyment. We do not get the comfort of our possessions. . . Hence it
   is at any rate helpful that we come to an agreement about human labours
   that they may not, as under competition, claim all our time and toil."
   [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.

   Forgetting about the individual was, for Stirner, the key problem with
   the forms of communism he was familiar with and so this "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." He went on to ask "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." Unlike egoism, which answers: "To take
   comfort in himself as unique, after he has done his part as man!" In
   other words, competition "has a continued existence" because "all do
   not attend to their affair and come to an understanding with each other
   about it." [p. 269 and p. 275] As can be seen from Chapter 8 of
   Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread ("The Need for Luxury"),
   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 [4]section I.4).

   Stirner notes that socialising property need not result in genuine
   freedom if it is not rooted in individual use and control. He states
   "the lord is proprietor. Choose then whether you want to be lord, or
   whether society shall be!" 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. "Instead of transforming the alien
   into own," Stirner noted, "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"
   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: "Neither God nor Man ('human
   society') is proprietor, but the individual." [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."

   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.

   Stirner demonstrates brilliantly how abstractions and fixed ideas
   ("spooks") 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.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secD10.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secB4.html
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secIcon.html
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI4.html
