One Answer

  1. Well, to begin with, one could say that there are no special differences and that Stirner's radical individualism is just a subclass of anarcho-individualism. But it's too simple and I'd still prefer to split it up.

    Anarchism, after all, is largely an ethical doctrine that asserts that forcing a person to enter into a contract that a person has not voluntarily entered into is bad and that a more just society should be built in which such involuntary legal relations will not exist.

    Stirner's individualism, on the other hand, does not operate with any ethics other than that which the individual has established for himself (for Me, there is nothing above Me, and so on). That is, Stirner is perfectly content with a world where he is an absolute dictator, forcing people to follow their desires, while the anarcho-individualist still wants to build a better society for everyone, and not just for himself.

    Stirner is often lumped together with anarchists, but he has never called himself an anarchist himself, and he is considerably out of step with the rest of the anarchists. When it comes to anarchism, I always recommend Paul Elzbacher's good, albeit outdated, work “Anarchism”, which gives an overview of all the existing trends at the beginning of the 20th century and analyzes their common features and differences.

Leave a Reply