Anarchist Current
of Stirnerian egoism and Proudhonian economics, although the European individualists were more consistent in their extremism. The problem for both is that while an egoist will not wanttobe exploited or dominated by anyone else, there is no reason why he or she would not exploit or dominate others. If the egoist The Anarchist Current can use existing power structures, or create new ones, to his or Continuity and Change in Anarchist Thought her advantage, then there is no reason for the egoist to adopt an anarchist stance. Furthermore, when each person regards the other simply as a means to his or her ends, taking and doing Robert Graham whatever is in his or her power, as Stirner advocated, it would seem unlikely that a Proudhonian economy of small property holders exchanging their products among one another would be able to function, for Proudhon’s notions of equivalent exchange and economic justice would carry no weight, even if they were feasible in a modern industrial economy. Armand rejected Proudhon’s notion of contract, arguing that “every contract can be voided the moment it injures one of the con- tracting parties,” since the individual is “free of all obligations as well as of collective morality.” At most, the individualist “is will- ing to enter into short-term arrangements only” as “an expedient,” being “only ever answerable to himself for his deeds and actions” (Volume One, Selection 42). Tucker, despite his attempts to base his anarchism on Stirner’s egoism, believed that contracts freely entered into should be binding and enforceable. In addition, he advocated the creation of “self-defence” associations to protect people’s property, opening the way, Kropotkin argued, “for reconstituting under the heading of ‘defence’ all the functions of the state” (1910: 18).
[Show full text]