> Most consider him an anarchist, I was using him as an example. I get that, but if you put someone forward as an example it seems odd to complain when people take him as one. That said, what I wrote above was deliberately framed in terms of general criteria (i.e., that bit about affirming or denying that "an Anarchist" is a "socialist") rather than a specific claim about Stirner because I didn't intend for it to rest on any claims about Stirner's being or not being an anarchist, and I'm quite familiar with some of the nomenclature problems involved. > I can name various others who would be unknown outside of the individualist anarchist and egoist anarchist community. Well, sure. You get some very explicit statements on this from folks like Sid Parker, or the crew at The Sovereign Self, for example. > Socialism itself has a common idea that is central to it's beliefs, Maybe. But I don't know that that needs to be the case. "Socialism" may be a family-resemblence concept, or a number of distinct family-resemblence concepts, rather than just one thing. > specifically it has a sort of morality. Well, I don't know about that. Do you mean that "Socialism itself" is based in an explicit appeal to morality, or that it does this on the sly, without acknowledging that that's what it's doing? Because if you mean the former, there certainly are people who want to call themselves socialists, who would specifically deny that -- Marx and Engels being a couple of obvious and notable examples. A lot of syndicalists, too. (M&E wanted to claim that their predecessors were more or less all moralists, but that certainly wouldn't be the first ridiculously inaccurate claim they made about their predecessors.) > I've yet to see a definition of socialism that one can apply to Stirner, if one ever comes about I'll gladly say that he fits under that definition but I wouldn't label him one for the single fact he never called himself one. O.K., fair enough. So just to be sure I understand, your reason for thinking that he doesn't qualify for, say, Tucker's understanding of "Anarchistic Socialism" is because you think he doesn't show enough concern for (macro-scale?) economic issues to think that that was really a live question for him? Or something like that?

O.K.; that's fine. (The only thing I'd be inclined to quibble about is that I think those leftist modes are an essential *part of* a freed market, not external counterbalances to it.) In any case, though, my point is just that that seems to be a different sort of account of what "capitalism" is and how it works than you get from the way it is used by, say, Rothbard, or David Friedman, or Kinsella, or Daniel D'Amico, etc., at least if we trace out how that notion actually gets deployed in argument. Now, maybe that's a reason to say that you're not an anarcho-capitalist after all; or maybe it's a reason to say that whatever you mean by "capitalism" is just something different from what other anarcho-capitalists have meant by it, etc. My main concern is just that it is important to note and keep track of the conceptual difference.

O.K.; that's fine. (The only thing I'd be inclined to quibble about is that I think those leftist modes are an essential *part of* a freed market, not external counterbalances to it.) In any case, though, my point is just that that seems to be a different sort of account of what "capitalism" is and how it works than you get from the way it is used by, say, Rothbard, or David Friedman, or Kinsella, or Daniel D'Amico, etc., at least if we trace out how that notion actually gets deployed in argument. Now, maybe that's a reason to say that you're not an anarcho-capitalist after all; or maybe it's a reason to say that whatever you mean by "capitalism" is just something different from what other anarcho-capitalists have meant by it, etc. My main concern is just that it is important to note and keep track of the conceptual difference.

Well, when your conversation partner refers to what Stirner actually wrote, and you refer to what An Anarchist FAQ says about Stirner, who you haven't read, this is not exactly a matter of you quoting "a reference" and your conversation partner failing to. If you want to read it for yourself, the main passages on Proudhon are in the "My Intercourse" section of "The Owner," around p. 328 and the following pages of the Byington translation (online here: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego14.html#pp328 and probably elsewhere). There are some other references to Proudhon scattered throughout the text. The criticism specifically has to do with Proudhon's views on property and possession, which he claims are "continuations and consistent carryings-out of the Christian principle, the principle of love, of sacrifice for something general, something alien. They complete in property, e.g., only what has long been extant as a matter of fact -- to wit, the propertylessness of the individual." There are also some occasional jabs at what Stirner takes to be Proudhon's views on religion, although I'm inclined to see those as not particularly important. The main discussion of "Socialism" in general is in the section on "Social Liberalism," around p. 152 ( http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego7.html#pp152 ). Stirner later lists Proudhon among the "parsons" (alongside theologians, liberals, schoolmasters, etc.) when he says "But the power of thoughts and ideas, the dominion of theories and principles, the sovereignty of the spirit, in short the -- *hierarchy*, lasts as long as the parsons ... have the floor." Anyway, you can read through his reasons for saying this if you want to; it's all available online. Whatever you may think of his take on Proudhon, or on "Socialism" as he understands it, I think it is quite obvious when AFAQ tries to treat this as simply a matter of "attack[ing] state socialism, not libertarian socialism," that has a lot more to do with what the authors of AFAQ look for in a philosopher than it has to do with what Stirner wrote. Stirner's attacks there actually have nothing to do with the state; they have to do with what he sees as the subordination of the individual and her ownership to the alien demands of social relationships and social institutions (which may include *but are in no way limited to* politics or the state). Whether or not his criticism of Proudhon, or of "Socialism," is particularly acute, or particularly fair (and I have my own views about that), it serves nobody to prevaricate or dissemble about what he actually wrote.

Well, when your conversation partner refers to what Stirner actually wrote, and you refer to what An Anarchist FAQ says about Stirner, who you haven't read, this is not exactly a matter of you quoting "a reference" and your conversation partner failing to. If you want to read it for yourself, the main passages on Proudhon are in the "My Intercourse" section of "The Owner," around p. 328 and the following pages of the Byington translation (online here: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego14.html#pp328 and probably elsewhere). There are some other references to Proudhon scattered throughout the text. The criticism specifically has to do with Proudhon's views on property and possession, which he claims are "continuations and consistent carryings-out of the Christian principle, the principle of love, of sacrifice for something general, something alien. They complete in property, e.g., only what has long been extant as a matter of fact -- to wit, the propertylessness of the individual." There are also some occasional jabs at what Stirner takes to be Proudhon's views on religion, although I'm inclined to see those as not particularly important. The main discussion of "Socialism" in general is in the section on "Social Liberalism," around p. 152 ( http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego7.html#pp152 ). Stirner later lists Proudhon among the "parsons" (alongside theologians, liberals, schoolmasters, etc.) when he says "But the power of thoughts and ideas, the dominion of theories and principles, the sovereignty of the spirit, in short the -- *hierarchy*, lasts as long as the parsons ... have the floor." Anyway, you can read through his reasons for saying this if you want to; it's all available online. Whatever you may think of his take on Proudhon, or on "Socialism" as he understands it, I think it is quite obvious when AFAQ tries to treat this as simply a matter of "attack[ing] state socialism, not libertarian socialism," that has a lot more to do with what the authors of AFAQ look for in a philosopher than it has to do with what Stirner wrote. Stirner's attacks there actually have nothing to do with the state; they have to do with what he sees as the subordination of the individual and her ownership to the alien demands of social relationships and social institutions (which may include *but are in no way limited to* politics or the state). Whether or not his criticism of Proudhon, or of "Socialism," is particularly acute, or particularly fair (and I have my own views about that), it serves nobody to prevaricate or dissemble about what he actually wrote.

> The problem is you're assuming he was an anarchist, ... That seems like an odd thing to say. *I* didn't say that Stirner *was* an Anarchist; you did, above: "Not all anarchists are socialists. For example, Max Stirner was an egoist anarchist ...." My own view is that it depends on what you mean by "anarchist;" certainly if we are going by self-identification, he never identified as one. There may be other reasons to apply the label retroactively; but if so, of course we'd best be clear that that is what we are doing, etc. etc. I agree with you that Stirner was explicitly critical of socialism, and not just of state socialism. The common AFAQ line that he was only criticizing state socialism is like a lot of common AFAQ assertions about individualists -- it has a lot more to do with how the communist authors of AFAQ want to present The Tradition than it does with what the folks in question actually wrote, and ends up with assertions that have a lot more to do with team sports than they do with the careful assessment of arguments. Certainly I agree with you that Stirner's comments about Proudhon in the section on The Owner (on property and possession, etc.), and on "Socialism" there and elsewhere, could not honestly be read as an attack only on *state* forms of socialism; they have primarily to do with what Stirner thought (rightly or wrongly) to be implied about the relationship that they seemed to demand between individuals and *society* (specifically not limited to the state). I'm not sure I grasp entirely the distinction you are trying to draw between "philosophical" and "economic" definitions of socialism (in part because I am not at all sure that there is any single philosophical approach or economic school that all forms of socialism have in common with each other). But I agree that there seem clearly to be some senses of the term "socialism" which it would be quite a stretch, or simply impossible, to fit Stirner's views into. (It becomes more complicated with some people, e.g. Tucker, who claimed to be drawing on Stirner's thought.) But that's really my point here: if we want to determine how much of a stretch it is, and *why*, it's going to be useful to spell out what we mean by the term, rather than presuming that this is obvious to all, or shared by everyone in the discussion. Even if there is *no* plausible sense of the term that could fit Stirner's views (and I'm certainly open to that possibility), the *reasons* that you'd give for denying the fit are going to differ from case to case. (The fact that Stirner could not be described as a "Socialist" in the political sense is, for example, much more obvious, and much less interesting, than the fact that he probably could not be called a "Socialist" in what you call the philosophical sense.)

> The problem is you're assuming he was an anarchist, ... That seems like an odd thing to say. *I* didn't say that Stirner *was* an Anarchist; you did, above: "Not all anarchists are socialists. For example, Max Stirner was an egoist anarchist ...." My own view is that it depends on what you mean by "anarchist;" certainly if we are going by self-identification, he never identified as one. There may be other reasons to apply the label retroactively; but if so, of course we'd best be clear that that is what we are doing, etc. etc. I agree with you that Stirner was explicitly critical of socialism, and not just of state socialism. The common AFAQ line that he was only criticizing state socialism is like a lot of common AFAQ assertions about individualists -- it has a lot more to do with how the communist authors of AFAQ want to present The Tradition than it does with what the folks in question actually wrote, and ends up with assertions that have a lot more to do with team sports than they do with the careful assessment of arguments. Certainly I agree with you that Stirner's comments about Proudhon in the section on The Owner (on property and possession, etc.), and on "Socialism" there and elsewhere, could not honestly be read as an attack only on *state* forms of socialism; they have primarily to do with what Stirner thought (rightly or wrongly) to be implied about the relationship that they seemed to demand between individuals and *society* (specifically not limited to the state). I'm not sure I grasp entirely the distinction you are trying to draw between "philosophical" and "economic" definitions of socialism (in part because I am not at all sure that there is any single philosophical approach or economic school that all forms of socialism have in common with each other). But I agree that there seem clearly to be some senses of the term "socialism" which it would be quite a stretch, or simply impossible, to fit Stirner's views into. (It becomes more complicated with some people, e.g. Tucker, who claimed to be drawing on Stirner's thought.) But that's really my point here: if we want to determine how much of a stretch it is, and *why*, it's going to be useful to spell out what we mean by the term, rather than presuming that this is obvious to all, or shared by everyone in the discussion. Even if there is *no* plausible sense of the term that could fit Stirner's views (and I'm certainly open to that possibility), the *reasons* that you'd give for denying the fit are going to differ from case to case. (The fact that Stirner could not be described as a "Socialist" in the political sense is, for example, much more obvious, and much less interesting, than the fact that he probably could not be called a "Socialist" in what you call the philosophical sense.)

I think it might be worth taking some time to ask what "Socialism" is when we are asking whether or not a particular anarchist counts as a socialist. Just as an example, for a while (roughly 1900s-1920s) a number of anarchist *communists* would specifically deny that they were Socialists, and would present the position of the "Socialists" in articles (see for example [this by Harry Kelly in Mother Earth](http://fair-use.org/mother-earth/1908/02/anarchism-a-plea-for-the-impersonal)) as something radically different from what they supported. Now you might point out that the "Socialism" and "Socialists" they were talking about had a rather narrow and specific meaning -- they were often talking specifically about partisans of either of a couple political parties, either Debs's SPA or De Leon's SLP. In any case it seems to have meant something different for them than what "Socialism" meant for, say, Proudhon, when he identified himself with the socialist movement. And you'd be right about that. But since questions about the meaning of the term can shift and drift and expand and contract like that, it does seem like it would be a good idea to say a bit more about each of us means, when we affirm that an Anarchist is a "socialist," or when we deny it. Also what our standards are going to be (does self-identification matter? how about relationship to the socialist movement of the time? etc.). Rather than simply presuming we're all on the same page, just because we are using the same word, and pushing ahead on that basis.

I think it might be worth taking some time to ask what "Socialism" is when we are asking whether or not a particular anarchist counts as a socialist. Just as an example, for a while (roughly 1900s-1920s) a number of anarchist *communists* would specifically deny that they were Socialists, and would present the position of the "Socialists" in articles (see for example [this by Harry Kelly in Mother Earth](http://fair-use.org/mother-earth/1908/02/anarchism-a-plea-for-the-impersonal)) as something radically different from what they supported. Now you might point out that the "Socialism" and "Socialists" they were talking about had a rather narrow and specific meaning -- they were often talking specifically about partisans of either of a couple political parties, either Debs's SPA or De Leon's SLP. In any case it seems to have meant something different for them than what "Socialism" meant for, say, Proudhon, when he identified himself with the socialist movement. And you'd be right about that. But since questions about the meaning of the term can shift and drift and expand and contract like that, it does seem like it would be a good idea to say a bit more about each of us means, when we affirm that an Anarchist is a "socialist," or when we deny it. Also what our standards are going to be (does self-identification matter? how about relationship to the socialist movement of the time? etc.). Rather than simply presuming we're all on the same page, just because we are using the same word, and pushing ahead on that basis.