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.
> that being said, the shift in the term "libertarian" is much more recent, and something rothbard explicitly gloats about, and certainly CATO etc played no small part in propagating this new set of terminology . . . That is a more recent shift, but not *that* much more recent -- you see it for example in the career of folks like Charles T. Sprading (as early as 1913, his book "Liberty and the Great Libertarians" could include folks like Paine, Jefferson (?!), Herbert Spencer, Abraham Lincoln (?!), Henry George, John Stuart Mill, etc. alongside Tucker, Spooner, Godwin and Kropotkin), and you then see it picked up and heavily promulgated in more or less its contemporary meaning by Frank Chodorov and especially Leonard Read by the 1940s. By the time Cato came along in 1974 this had already long been the case -- although of course Cato's prominence in the public-affairs newsmedia helped cement what had already been the case, etc. etc. (Although, I suspect, the creation of the Libertarian Party at about the same time had at least as much to do with that as Cato did.) Anyway, I agree that the Nolan Chart kind of sucks and that whole cluster of ideas can make it really hard to discuss anti-capitalist libertarian viewpoints. The consolation I try to take from all this is that there is some opportunity to use these kind of terminological tangles to your advantage -- to use phrases that seem deliberately paradoxical, even though they really aren't. Because part of the reason I do go around calling myself a "libertarian leftist" and a "free market anticapitalist" and all that is that, besides being accurate, it also helps to provoke a question, and prove a point. The fact that these labels seem like a big, crazy contradiction can actually be made to work in my favor -- because it gets people curious, and provokes them to ask "What the hell do you mean by that?" And then I get the chance to explain.
> that being said, the shift in the term "libertarian" is much more recent, and something rothbard explicitly gloats about, and certainly CATO etc played no small part in propagating this new set of terminology . . . That is a more recent shift, but not *that* much more recent -- you see it for example in the career of folks like Charles T. Sprading (as early as 1913, his book "Liberty and the Great Libertarians" could include folks like Paine, Jefferson (?!), Herbert Spencer, Abraham Lincoln (?!), Henry George, John Stuart Mill, etc. alongside Tucker, Spooner, Godwin and Kropotkin), and you then see it picked up and heavily promulgated in more or less its contemporary meaning by Frank Chodorov and especially Leonard Read by the 1940s. By the time Cato came along in 1974 this had already long been the case -- although of course Cato's prominence in the public-affairs newsmedia helped cement what had already been the case, etc. etc. (Although, I suspect, the creation of the Libertarian Party at about the same time had at least as much to do with that as Cato did.) Anyway, I agree that the Nolan Chart kind of sucks and that whole cluster of ideas can make it really hard to discuss anti-capitalist libertarian viewpoints. The consolation I try to take from all this is that there is some opportunity to use these kind of terminological tangles to your advantage -- to use phrases that seem deliberately paradoxical, even though they really aren't. Because part of the reason I do go around calling myself a "libertarian leftist" and a "free market anticapitalist" and all that is that, besides being accurate, it also helps to provoke a question, and prove a point. The fact that these labels seem like a big, crazy contradiction can actually be made to work in my favor -- because it gets people curious, and provokes them to ask "What the hell do you mean by that?" And then I get the chance to explain.
I'm no fan of Charles Koch but the shift, or contraction, of meaning for the term "socialism" -- which had a very wide range of meanings in the 19th century, but now is often used to mean more or less exclusively "state socialism," or "state control of the means of production," or just "regulatory welfare statism," or just "statism" simpliciter -- is not really something you can pin on him. That linguistic shift was already well in effect by the 1920s. You can see it in Mises's book on "Socialism," but also even within the anticapitalist anarchist movement itself -- so for example in 1908 you have the communist Anarchist [Harry Kelly writing an article in Mother Earth where "Socialism" is repeatedly used to mean a state-socialist program distinct from anything the Anarchists advocate](http://fair-use.org/mother-earth/1908/02/anarchism-a-plea-for-the-impersonal). (The rise in popularity of Debs's Socialist Party of America, as well as fallout from the split between the Red and Yellow IWW, both no doubt contributed to this.) And there are moves in that direction at least as far back as [the 1890s](http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/armies-that-overlap), although folks like Tucker tried to resist the shift. Anyway there is no doubt that this kind of thing has blinkered a lot of thought and is worth trying to linguistically jam or explode where possible. (There's a reason I pass out copies of Tucker's "State Socialism and Anarchism" everywhere I go.) But the "newspeak" here is hardly very new, and it's certainly something that was already well entrenched long before the Koch-bros ever came onto the scene.
I'm no fan of Charles Koch but the shift, or contraction, of meaning for the term "socialism" -- which had a very wide range of meanings in the 19th century, but now is often used to mean more or less exclusively "state socialism," or "state control of the means of production," or just "regulatory welfare statism," or just "statism" simpliciter -- is not really something you can pin on him. That linguistic shift was already well in effect by the 1920s. You can see it in Mises's book on "Socialism," but also even within the anticapitalist anarchist movement itself -- so for example in 1908 you have the communist Anarchist [Harry Kelly writing an article in Mother Earth where "Socialism" is repeatedly used to mean a state-socialist program distinct from anything the Anarchists advocate](http://fair-use.org/mother-earth/1908/02/anarchism-a-plea-for-the-impersonal). (The rise in popularity of Debs's Socialist Party of America, as well as fallout from the split between the Red and Yellow IWW, both no doubt contributed to this.) And there are moves in that direction at least as far back as [the 1890s](http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/armies-that-overlap), although folks like Tucker tried to resist the shift. Anyway there is no doubt that this kind of thing has blinkered a lot of thought and is worth trying to linguistically jam or explode where possible. (There's a reason I pass out copies of Tucker's "State Socialism and Anarchism" everywhere I go.) But the "newspeak" here is hardly very new, and it's certainly something that was already well entrenched long before the Koch-bros ever came onto the scene.
Anticopyright.