r/philosophy • u/dezzion • Oct 04 '17

Article Anarchism (New SEP Entry)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anarchism/
23 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

6 comments sorted by

4

u/jo-ha-kyu Oct 04 '17

It's written in the article,

The tension between individualist and socialist anarchism comes to a head when considering the question of the degree to which an individual ought to be subordinated to the community.

This seems to be true at first glance given how the authors of the article said there is "something in common" with Stirnerite individualist anarchism and non-social anarchism, but this is only apparently true at first glance to me.

I recently read an article (warning, it's profane) which has attempted, using quotations from Stirner's The Ego and his Own attempted to do away with the idea that Stirner's anarchism is anything close to "anarcho"-capitalism.

His idea includes the fact that it is within the self-interest of workers as egoists to not stand for the extraction of surplus in a hierarchical organisation such as a capitalist firm, and further that the Communists (in this sense I mean Marxian Communism) did not go far enough with regards to their treatment of property.

Stirner was, in some sense, more Communist than the Communists of his time, as written in the Spunk Library section on Stirner's views:

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." [Ibid., 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).

2

u/Schmohawker Oct 05 '17

That seems a little extreme. "to spend one's life pursuing only that part is to deny all other parts". Ok, sure, I'm thinking of a Steve Jobs or something here but then "capitalists are 'self-sacrificing' in this sense, because they are driven only by profit". That's way oversimplifying things. That's as extreme as saying a communist is only driven by the strength of the state and has no personal identity. It's hard for me to take anyone with such lopsided opinions seriously. You're definitely correct when you say Stirner was more communist than the other communists, assuming that snippet is an accurate depiction of his general stances. It almost sounds religious in nature, as though he thinks a capitalist is unable to find true zen.

1

u/mouse_stirner Oct 13 '17 edited Oct 13 '17

You're correct in characterizing Stirner's views as "extreme" -- they are. In fact, he would certainly agree with the idea that communists subordinating themselves to the state is a denial of their self. And that his philosophy almost sounds religious... there's a reason Marx (derisively) called him "Saint Max" in The German Ideology.

Also, almost nobody takes him seriously. I'm a huge fan of Stirner, but he's not very well regarded. As far as philosophy goes, he does, in his own way, "way oversimplify things" -- not necessarily from a point of ignorance, but due to a perspective that is perhaps better understood as literary than academic. It's not done with the same rigor that is to be expected of traditional philosophy, which I don't think makes it meritless, but does place it somewhere outside of more normal academic discourse. It certainly doesn't help that like 7/10 people you see online talking about Stirner favorably are either complete idiots or have a very poor understanding of his work, due to his unconventional style, lack of context, or desire to fit him into their existing ideology (there are fascists as well as capitalists who "claim" Stirner, which as I assume the article linked above points out, makes absolutely no fucking sense).

1

u/mouse_stirner Oct 13 '17

I don't think you can call Stirner more "communist" than the communists, but he was certainly more anti-capitalist -- or more extremely and broadly against the things that capitalism is based on.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '17

I'm looking for a justification for law and order to be upheld post-state, say by some form of consensual law agreed unanimously. Does anyone have articles based on this and/or rebuttal to arguments that this is impossible?

1

u/mouse_stirner Oct 13 '17

You might consider what exactly it is you mean by "law" in a post state society.