Talk:Egoist anarchism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Libertarianism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Egoist anarchism is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Union of Egoists[edit]

The section on the Union of Egoists needs to be improved badly, right now it's mainly copy and paste. Some of the content may not apply to the anarchist interpretation of the concept either. But I feel it's good to have something there. Zazaban (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Possible sources; [1], [2], [3], [4] [5] << This last one is quite good, has some brilliant info on the union of egoists. and egoistic justification of the removal of the state.

Later development[edit]

We need an intro for the section to replace the old one, which was terrible. Zazaban (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

List of articles that will need to be updated[edit]

This is a list of all the already existing articles that will need to be linked to here, or have section headings changed, or anything, upon the finishing of this article. If you feel an article will need an update, add it here.

Zazaban (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Our first port of call ought to be anarchist schools of thought - the main anarchism article consists largely of a summary of that article. Consideration needs to be given to how to slot E-A into our existing schema - as a subset of ind. anarchism with a link to communism or (perhaps more problematically) as a distinct school of thought outside the social/individualist division.
Obviously, a lot of this article would go into the philosophy of Max Stirner, individualist anarchism and Anarchism in the United States articles, and a good bit into the anarchist communism article. As for the others, though links seem obvious, I'm not sure how much sourced material about egoist anarchism we can include. the skomorokh 17:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it would be totally correct to put in under individualist anarchism, there are quite a few communist egoists. Most of the articles would just be adding a link. I'm including any minor change. Zazaban (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Also 'Category:Egoists (Individualist anarchists)' should be renamed. Zazaban (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
You're telling me; check out the deletion debate. The category was kept with its current naming because of the "Keep Not Madness, Anarchy! What do you expect Otto :)" vote...go figure. the skomorokh 23:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear. Also, as this article points out, not all egoists are individualists. Zazaban (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Info that could be useful in the main body.[edit]

Stirner rejects the state. Without law the state is not possible. The respect for the law is what holds the state together. The state, like the law, exists not because an individual recognizes it as favorable to his welfare but because lie considers it to be sacred. To Stirner the state, like the law, is not sacred. [6]
Stirner is the mortal enemy of the state. The welfare of the state has nothing to do with his own welfare and he should therefore sacrifice nothing to it. The general welfare is not his welfare but only means self-denial on his part. The object of the state is to limit the individual, to tame him, to subordinate him, to subject him to something general for the purpose of the state. The state hinders an individual from attaining his true value, while at the same time it exploits the individual to get some benefit out of him. [7]
The state stands in the way between men, tearing them apart. Stirner would transform the state into his own property and his own creature instead of being the property and creature of the state. He would annihilate it and form in its place a Union of Egoists. The state must be destroyed because it is the negation of the individual will, it approaches men as a collective unit, The struggle between the egoists and the state is inevitable. Once the state is annihilated the Union of Egoists will prevail. [8]
  • This could be useful information if we incorporate it properly. Or it could not, I haven't decided. Zazaban (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Property section[edit]

This section needs work badly, especially with citations. It could also use some reference to somebody other than Stirner, like something of Tucker's take on the subject. Zazaban (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The natural rights/egoist split in American ind anarchism ought to be chronicled in Liberty. You might also try asking User:Libertatia, who ought to know a thing or two about the topic. the skomorokh 12:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Had to delete it for now. Shame too. Will work on it more later. Zazaban (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Do you think the property section should remain as-is, or should we just cut it down to what's sources and have me keep the full version my my sandbox? Because I'm finding it highly irksome that that is essentially the only thing left keeping this off the mainspace. Unless somebody who owns a copy of The Ego And It's Own is willing to go cramming for citations. Zazaban (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just got my literature recovered, including a well-worn copy of Der Einzige. I'm very willing to go citation-diving; hat specifically are we looking for from the book? I strongly suggest we leave no unreferenced claims in the mainspace version of the article; this is to my knowledge the first systematic presentation of the concept of "egoist anarchism", and we have a serious responsibility to get our facts straight and spare the ridicule of further generations. This stuff can really matter. Skomorokh 04:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
We need to find something to cite the great mass of uncited material in the Property section, and the single one in the UOE section. There's also one under Illegalism, but it's something from Liberty and I don't think it exists online. And yes, I feel we are making a historic contribution to the anarchist movement. I have felt the first few inklings of an egoist revival, and I feel this article may be the catalyst to get it off the ground. Hell, we could be kicking off a new wave of anarchist thought! </Fantasy>
And after that we should immediately get to that list of articles that should be updated, then to that nasty, nasty Egoist (individual anarchist) category. Zazaban (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I have just order a copy of TEAIO, and I will be able to find references at long last. Hallelujah! Zazaban (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Glasgow anarchists.[edit]

I'm going to add a section on egoist anarcho-syndicalists, using [9] as a source. Zazaban (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Another possible source:[edit]

[10] Zazaban (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Union of egoists as an affinity group.[edit]

This interpretation should be mentioned. Zazaban (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Situationist International[edit]

The Si may have had an influence on anarchism, as on other political currents Israeli Defence Force, Ken Livingston etc., but what specific impact did they have on egoist anarchism, please?Harrypotter (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It is an egoist organization, which has had influence on anarchism. I believe that Bob Black is an egoist, and the SI is an influence on him. Most forms of egoist anarchism since the '70s probably have been influenced by the SI in some degree. Zazaban (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
In this article you are confusing those INFLUENCED by egoism from those that are egoists. "Egoism" is a specific philosophy that only applies to a few individualists. Goalyoman (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a source for this? Because otherwise is sourced. Zazaban (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't sourced. If you're using "egoism" in such a loose sense as wanting to do what's in their self interest, that's going to include a lot of anarchists. Goalyoman (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it probably could. The source called it egoism. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Zazaban (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Is your position that if someone calls oneself as "egoist" and they're anarchists, that this makes them "egoist anarchists?" Goalyoman (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
More or less. Zazaban (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
This article makes it look like there is a form of anarchism called "egoist anarchism" and that everyone listed are included. That's the problem I have with it. If it were called something like "Egoism and anarchism" then I think it would make more sense. Goalyoman (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Anything that would be called "egoist anarchism" would refer only to Stirnerism. Goalyoman (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps that would be better. I preferred this title because it's a very distinctive trait. It would follow that people who follow 'anarchism' that identify as 'egoists' would be 'egoist anarchists'. It should be discussed with more than two people before a move is made, anyhow. Zazaban (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It leads the reader to believe that they're Stirnerites, when they're not. Goalyoman (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The article never uses the word 'stirnerite'. And most people who identify with the term 'egoist' will have taken large influence from Stirner. Zazaban (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, influence from Stirner and being an "egoist" in the sense of the name of a type of anarchism are two different things. Goalyoman (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe there should be a separate article "Egoism (Stirnerite)"? Goalyoman (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For Ourselves Council for Generalized Self-Management[edit]

I removed the following: ""For Ourselves Council for Generalized Self-Management" in The Right To Be Greedy: Theses On The Practical Necessity Of Demanding Everything discusses Stirner and speaks of a "communist egoism," which is said to be a "synthesis of individualism and collectivism," and says that "greed in its fullest sense is the only possible basis of communist society.[4]"

This is from a self-published book, so I don't think it's notable to be there in the introduction as if communism is commonly thought to be egoism. I'd like to see some evidence of it's notability. Also I'd like some evidence that the philosophy contained in this book has been called "egoist anarchism." Jadabocho (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This article has serious problems in the neutral-point-of-view and accuracy departments[edit]

This article uses references to interpretations by secondary sources that are clearly in conflict with Stirner's writing. For example, the sentence at the beginning that "Stirnerite egoism held that whatever a man has the might to do, he has the right to do" is a social-darwinian interpretation that at best dilutes Stirner, and at worst stains it irrepairably. The very first paragraph of the Overview contradicts it, by accurately stating that Stirner considered 'rights' of any type to be illegitimate, so how could anyone acheive 'rights' from 'might' or anywhere else? In fact it is the might of the government that decides what rights are and who gets them that Stirner so adamantly admonishes. In Stirner's Union of Egoists the participants would be too egoistically enlightened to go around using might as a primary means of enforcing social contract. Unfortunately the first paragraph of the Overview section concludes with yet another bogus secondary-source interpretation: Stirner wanted to "abolish not only the state but also society as an institution responsible for its members.", which is utter nonsense since we all know that Stirner was sharply critical of all things 'revolutionary'. Stirner would have been far more impressed by an individual who acheives satisfaction by using state apparatus for his own purposes than a wild-eyed revolutionary spouting diatribes about 'freedom'. The only thing the Wikipedia articles on Stirner and egoism prove is that in the early 21st century the philosophy of Max Stirner is deeply misunderstood. Stirner did not want people to fix the world by tinkering with it, he wanted people to fix the world by fixing themselves from within, and if everyone did that the outside world would simply fall into place accordingly. Trying to change the outside world explicitly requires the exaltation of an 'idea' which is a no-no! People have trouble differentiating between Stirner's advice for coping in a world where the individual egoist is awash in a sea of non-egoists, and Stirner's speculation about how a world comprised entirely of egoists would operate. Though Stirner doesn't advocate 'might' or 'abolishmenet of state/society' in either mode, in fact he explicitly refers to 'biding ones time' when one finds oneself in the former situation (an egoist awash in a world of non-egoists), until one finds oneself in the latter situation (an egoist in a world comprised of fellow egoists). Really, people, this is pretty simple stuff. Those of you obfuscating it aren't doing it because you are incapable of understanding it, you'e doing it because you are, so far, unwilling to accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.249.243 (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with some of your views on the philosophy of Stirner. Nevertheless for the changes you might wish to happen on this article and on otheres related with Stirner we need outside sources to support them. As far as the section "Overview" I see that you are pointing out something with could bring out misrepresentations of Stirner´s philosophy which is excessive reliance on third party sources while we could easily rely on Stirner´s citations. The first part of the section "overview" relies on unclear sources mainly because only the titles of articles are given but not citations from them. And before the section on property starts there is clearly an excessive focus on Stirner´s influence within the United States which is redundant since this particular point is treated on the later sections. I do claim responsability on expanding the section on "property" but as I see it, this particular point might be given excessive treatment here without treating other important aspects of his philosophy which might be for example his distinction between revolution and insurrection or his conception of the "unique". As this stands now, it doesn´t lead too well towards the later sections in which more diverse themes are brought from Stirner´s philosophy.

So I invite you if you have the time, to help us improve this section. I think I can bring out other sources which do consider these points I have raised but I think it is nessesary to reduce the section "property" in order to provide a better overview of Stirner´s philosophy which could be done through touching other important points within it. --Eduen (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

egoist anarchism/rational egoism[edit]

Is this article consistent with the ideology sometimes connected to the Romanticism of the 20th and 19th century, and referred to as 'rational egoism'? -- if so, should not a link appear in the introductory paragraph to this related philosophy? My understanding is that, rational egoists, suppose that the rules and laws which govern human behavior and society are 'arbitrary', and that it is reasonable and rational to break rules and laws when it is convenient or necessary to do so, in order to achieve one's own ends. In this way, this philosophy called also be called 'romantic' or 'utilitarian' individualism -- in which, the needs of an individual (the need of an individual to achieve 'growth' or 'egoic expansion'), are greater (in value or importance) to the rules/laws/regulations of society, government, or some other force of moral or ethical arbitration. Should a link be included? -0101Roger0101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.85.203 (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Egoist Anarchism/Rational Egoism[edit]

-- the 'rational egoism' article refers to the work of 'Ayn Rand', sometimes classified as a 'objective realist' -- I believe it may be more appropriate to refer to the work of F. Scott Fitzgerald, and specifically 'This Side of Paradise', which may be useful as 'Amory Blaine', the central character, is in some ways, representative of a typical 'rational egoist' (one of the non-megoloamnical varieties -> not a super villain). Unless there are complaints, I will begin moving in the direction of such an edit. 0101Roger0101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.85.203 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

All of this doesn´t look to be related to anarchism. I don´t even know why this is mentioned here at all.--Eduen (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)