Stirner, Proudhon and Bakunin | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: 7 days ago
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 55 minutes
This Stirner, Proudhon and Bakunin A-Level Politics revision page examines three of Edexcel's five specified anarchist thinkers. You need to understand Max Stirner's egoism and Union of Egoists, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualism and peaceful rejection of the state, and Mikhail Bakunin's propaganda by the deed, belief in human sociability and support for collectivisation. The focus is on their key ideas rather than biography, and on using those ideas to explain wider agreements and tensions within collectivist and individualist anarchism.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain Stirner's view of the rational, self-interested individual.
Explain Stirner's Union of Egoists and distinguish insurrection from revolution.
Explain Proudhon's opposition to private property and collectivism and his support for mutualism.
Explain Proudhon's rejection of the state through peaceful means.
Explain Bakunin's propaganda by the deed, belief in human sociability and support for collectivisation.
Compare how Stirner, Proudhon and Bakunin illustrate agreements and tensions within anarchism.
Revision Notes 📚
Stirner, Proudhon and Bakunin: A-Level Politics revision overview
Edexcel requires five anarchist thinkers, but specifies that students should focus on the key ideas given in the specification rather than detailed biographical information. For this lesson, those thinkers are:
Max Stirner
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Mikhail Bakunin
The specification connects their ideas to the wider anarchist debates you have already studied about:
liberty
human nature
the state
political authority
economic freedom
the future stateless society
They share an anarchist rejection of coercive authority, but they differ significantly over the individual, economic organisation and how existing institutions should disappear.
A useful starting comparison is:
Stirner | Proudhon | Bakunin |
Individualist anarchism and egoism | Mutualism | Collectivist emphasis |
Rational, self-interested individual | Economic freedom through mutualism | Strong belief in human sociability |
Union of Egoists | Opposition to private property and collectivism | Collectivisation |
Insurrection | Peaceful rejection and overthrow of the state | Propaganda by the deed and revolution |
Max Stirner
Max Stirner is the specified thinker most clearly associated with egoism, one of the forms of individualist anarchism.
His ideas provide a sharp contrast with the more co-operative understanding of human nature associated with thinkers such as Bakunin.
Stirner's rational, self-interested individual
The specification identifies Stirner's individual as:
rational
self-interested
at the centre of the moral universe
This reflects the individualist anarchist belief that people are capable of making judgements in their own interests without a state directing their lives.
For Stirner, the starting point is therefore not a collective community but the individual.
This connects directly to autonomy, which Edexcel defines as self-government combining freedom and responsibility, where the individual is not subject to the will of the state or another person.
The broader reasoning is:
rational individual → ability to make personal choices → no need for coercive political authority → individual autonomy
Stirner and egoism
Egoism places the self-interested individual at the centre of political and social thinking.
The individual should not be made subordinate to external political authority or compulsory social arrangements.
This places Stirner firmly within the individualist tradition studied in collectivist and individualist anarchism.
Individualist anarchism is based upon freedom for rational, autonomous, competitive and self-interested individuals to make judgements in their own best interests.
Stirner therefore helps illustrate why individualists are especially concerned with the ability of the individual to determine their own life.
Stirner and the state
Like other anarchists, Stirner rejects the state.
The wider anarchist understanding of the state is that it exercises authority over individuals and restricts liberty.
For Stirner, the state is particularly problematic because it limits individual autonomy.
Edexcel mark schemes have repeatedly used Stirner to illustrate the individualist argument that the state restricts the freedom of rational, self-seeking individuals.
This connects Stirner back to rejection of the state, liberty and anarchy is order.
The Union of Egoists
Stirner's future stateless society is the Union of Egoists.
This reflects the idea that the disappearance of the state does not mean the disappearance of relationships between people.
Instead, Stirner envisages an association of liberated, self-interested individuals.
The important principle is that such association is compatible with individual autonomy rather than being imposed by a political authority.
The reasoning is:
abolition of coercive authority → liberated individuals → voluntary association → Union of Egoists
Edexcel mark schemes contrast Stirner's Union of Egoists with collectivist visions based upon co-operation, mutualism or mutual aid.
This makes Stirner particularly useful in essays about:
human nature
liberty
society
individualism and collectivism
anarchy as order
Stirner and anarchy is order
The Union of Egoists illustrates Stirner's version of anarchy is order.
Removing the state does not automatically produce chaos because rational individuals can associate without being controlled by a sovereign political authority.
This differs from Bakunin's explanation of stateless order.
Stirner: order can arise from free association between rational, self-interested individuals.
Bakunin: order can arise because humans possess a strong capacity for sociability and co-operation.
They reach a shared anarchist conclusion from different understandings of human nature.
Stirner and insurrection
The method by which Stirner's future society emerges is particularly important.
The specification states clearly that the Union of Egoists is brought about through insurrection, not overthrow of the state.
This distinction has caused repeated problems in Edexcel examinations.
What is insurrection?
Edexcel defines insurrection as something that is:
not synonymous with revolution
egoistic
not primarily a political or social act
based upon individuals elevating themselves above established institutions
leaving those established institutions to decay and die
So Stirner is not simply proposing another method of political revolution.
The logic is different.
Revolution
Revolution involves changing existing political, social or economic relationships.
Insurrection
Insurrection begins with the liberated individual no longer allowing established institutions to control them.
The contrast is therefore:
Revolution: transform or overthrow political and social arrangements.
Insurrection: the individual rises above established institutions, allowing them to decay.
💡 Exam priority: If you remember only one distinction about Stirner, make it this one. The 2024 and 2025 examiner reports both identified confusion between insurrection and revolution as a recurring problem.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Proudhon's specified ideas connect anarchism's rejection of the state with its debate about economic freedom.
You need to understand two linked arguments:
his opposition to private property and collectivism, with mutualism as the alternative
his rejection and overthrow of the state through peaceful means
Proudhon's criticism of private property
Proudhon argues that private property limits liberty and economic freedom.
This follows the broader anarchist idea that freedom is not only political.
A person cannot be genuinely free simply because the state disappears if economic relationships continue to create domination or exploitation.
The connection is:
private property → restriction of economic freedom → restriction of liberty
Proudhon therefore seeks an economic alternative.
Proudhon also rejects collectivism
A very important qualification is that Proudhon does not simply replace private property with collectivisation.
The specification explicitly identifies his opposition to:
private property
collectivism
His solution is mutualism.
This distinction is easy to miss.
The Edexcel specification places mutualism among the forms of collectivist anarchism, while Proudhon's specified ideas themselves include opposition to collectivism.
For examination purposes, learn both specification points accurately rather than reducing Proudhon to a simple advocate of common ownership.
What is mutualism?
Edexcel defines mutualism as a system of:
equitable exchange
between self-governing producers
organised individually or in association
with small-scale property based upon use or possession
This creates an alternative to both conventional private property and complete common ownership.
The key features are therefore:
self-government + equitable exchange + voluntary association + possession based on use
Mutualism and economic freedom
Mutualism expresses the wider anarchist principle of economic freedom.
Economic life should not be controlled by the state. Instead, individuals and associations should manage their own economic affairs.
Proudhon's position can be summarised as:
state economic control rejected
plus
conventional private property rejected
plus
collectivism rejected
equals
mutualism
This makes Proudhon especially useful for demonstrating that anarchists do not share one economic blueprint.
The 2023 mark scheme contrasts Proudhon's mutualism with Kropotkin's common ownership, demonstrating disagreement even within the broader collectivist tradition.
You can develop this further through economic freedom and utopianism.
Proudhon's rejection of the state
Proudhon also rejects the state.
This places him firmly within the fundamental anarchist commitment to abolishing coercive political authority.
For anarchists, the state is an institution that:
exercises authority
uses power to secure that authority
restricts liberty
maintains unequal relationships
Proudhon therefore shares the core anarchist objective of a stateless society.
Peaceful overthrow
What distinguishes Proudhon from Bakunin is his specified approach to removing the state.
Edexcel states that Proudhon supports:
the rejection and overthrow of the state via peaceful means.
This produces an important disagreement within collectivist anarchism.
Both Proudhon and Bakunin want the state to disappear, but they differ over the means:
Proudhon: peaceful means
Bakunin: propaganda by the deed to spark revolution
Recent Edexcel mark schemes use precisely this contrast to demonstrate differences within anarchism over how the existing state should be replaced.
Proudhon and anarchy is order
Proudhon's rejection of the state also connects to the belief that anarchy is order.
Anarchists argue that liberty allows natural and spontaneous social order to emerge rather than requiring political authority.
Proudhon's mutualism provides one possible model for such a society because economic relationships would be based upon self-governing producers and voluntary association rather than state control.
His ideas therefore connect:
liberty → self-government → mutualism → stateless order
Mikhail Bakunin
Bakunin exemplifies a more explicitly collectivist understanding of anarchism.
The specification requires three particularly important ideas:
propaganda by the deed
strong belief in human sociability
collectivisation
These ideas are closely connected.
Bakunin's understanding of human nature helps explain why he believes the state and private property can disappear, while propaganda by the deed explains how revolutionary change might begin.
Bakunin and propaganda by the deed
For Bakunin, propaganda by the deed would spark revolution.
The specification directly connects this idea to his belief that:
the state must be abolished
state power is oppressive
The argument begins with the anarchist view of power.
Edexcel defines power as the means or instruments, including law, police and ideology, through which the state and other institutions secure their authority.
For Bakunin, such power is oppressive.
The state therefore cannot simply be adjusted or made less powerful. It must be abolished.
Propaganda by the deed and revolution
The sequence in Bakunin's argument is:
state power is oppressive → propaganda by the deed → revolution → abolition of the state
The specification does not require detailed historical examples of propaganda by the deed. The testable point is the relationship between the idea and Bakunin's revolutionary rejection of state power.
⚠️ Do not add unnecessary biographical or historical detail. Pearson explicitly states that the thinkers should be studied through the specified key ideas, rather than detailed biography.
Bakunin compared with Stirner
This is one of the clearest comparisons in the topic.
Stirner | Bakunin |
Individualist | Collectivist |
Egoism | Sociability |
Self-interested rational individual | Humans have strong social potential |
Insurrection | Revolution |
Union of Egoists | Collectivist stateless society |
Individual rises above existing institutions | Propaganda by the deed sparks revolutionary transformation |
The essential distinction is:
Stirner's insurrection is not revolution. Bakunin explicitly looks towards revolution.
Bakunin and human sociability
Bakunin has a strong belief in human sociability.
This means he believes human beings have the capacity to form social and co-operative relationships.
This assumption is crucial because anarchists reject the argument that government is required to impose order.
If humans possess the capacity for sociability, then:
state removed → human sociability develops → voluntary co-operation → social order
Bakunin therefore illustrates the collectivist side of the debate about human nature.
Sociability and collectivist anarchism
The specification describes collectivist anarchism more broadly as seeking conditions that nurture a:
rational
altruistic
co-operative
human nature.
Bakunin's sociability fits this understanding.
Humans do not have to be controlled from above because their social nature can provide the basis for relationships with others.
This contrasts with Stirner.
Stirner's social order begins with rational self-interest.
Bakunin's begins with sociability and co-operation.
The 2023 mark scheme used exactly this contrast to demonstrate disagreement between individualist and collectivist anarchism over how order spontaneously emerges after the state disappears.
Bakunin and private property
Bakunin's belief in sociability is connected to his economic position.
He supports:
abolition of private property
its replacement with collectivisation
This distinguishes him from Proudhon.
Both criticise conventional private property, but their alternatives differ.
What is collectivisation?
Edexcel defines collectivisation as:
the abolition of private property and its replacement by a system of common ownership.
This is one of the key terms you need to use precisely.
The basic economic contrast is:
Private property → abolished
Common ownership → introduced
Sociability and collectivisation
Bakunin's economic and human-nature arguments reinforce one another.
If humans are strongly social and capable of co-operation, then common ownership does not require a coercive state to organise it.
This is crucial.
Collectivisation does not mean state ownership.
Bakunin is an anarchist and therefore rejects the state itself.
His position instead combines:
abolition of the state + abolition of private property + common ownership
The desired society is therefore both stateless and collectivist.
Comparing Proudhon and Bakunin on the economy
Proudhon and Bakunin both criticise private property, but they do not propose the same solution.
Proudhon | Bakunin |
Private property limits liberty and economic freedom | Private property should be abolished |
Rejects collectivism | Supports collectivisation |
Supports mutualism | Supports common ownership |
Small-scale possession based on use is possible within mutualism | Private property is replaced by common ownership |
This comparison is extremely useful in an essay because it demonstrates disagreement within the broader collectivist anarchist tradition.
A simplistic answer might say:
Collectivist anarchists support common ownership.
A stronger answer recognises that Proudhon's mutualism creates an important qualification to that generalisation.
Comparing the three thinkers on the state
All three thinkers are anarchists and therefore reject the state.
However, they illustrate significant disagreements about why and how the state disappears.
Thinker | Why existing authority is rejected | How change occurs | Future society |
Stirner | State authority limits the autonomous, self-interested individual | Insurrection | Union of Egoists |
Proudhon | State and unequal economic arrangements restrict liberty | Peaceful rejection and overthrow | Stateless society associated with mutualism |
Bakunin | State power is oppressive | Propaganda by the deed sparks revolution | Stateless society associated with collectivisation |
This reveals one of the most important patterns in anarchism:
agreement over the destination does not mean agreement over the route.
All reject coercive state authority.
But:
Stirner stresses insurrection
Proudhon stresses peaceful means
Bakunin stresses revolution
The 2025 mark scheme identifies these approaches as a major source of division within anarchism.
Comparing their views of human nature
Human nature produces another significant difference.
Stirner
Stirner emphasises:
rationality
self-interest
individual autonomy
Order can therefore develop through the voluntary association of liberated individuals.
Bakunin
Bakunin emphasises:
sociability
collective relationships
the ability to co-operate
Order can therefore emerge through the social character of humanity.
Proudhon
Proudhon's specified ideas are principally concerned with:
property
mutualism
economic freedom
peaceful rejection of the state
You should not invent a separate detailed theory of Proudhon's human nature beyond what the specification supports.
💡 This is an important revision habit: use each thinker for the specific ideas Edexcel assigns to them.
Comparing their views of liberty
All three thinkers can support the wider anarchist argument that coercive authority restricts liberty.
However, their ideas emphasise different conditions for freedom.
Stirner
Freedom centres on the autonomy of the rational, self-interested individual.
This individual must not remain subordinate to established institutions.
Proudhon
Political liberty is connected to economic freedom.
Private property limits liberty, so mutualism provides an alternative based upon self-governing producers.
Bakunin
Liberty is connected to the abolition of oppressive state power and private property.
His belief in sociability means freedom can be exercised through relationships with others rather than requiring isolated individualism.
The 2024 mark scheme uses Stirner and Bakunin to illustrate the wider tension:
individualists emphasise autonomy
collectivists see liberty as achievable through co-operation with others
Their ideas as a spectrum of anarchist change
A useful way to remember the thinkers is through the different routes they take from existing society towards statelessness.
Stirner: insurrection
The change begins with the individual rising above established institutions.
Proudhon: peaceful overthrow
The state is rejected, but the transition is through peaceful means.
Bakunin: revolution
Propaganda by the deed sparks revolutionary change and the state is abolished.
This gives you a very strong three-way comparison:
individual insurrection ← peaceful overthrow → revolutionary overthrow
The methods differ, but all three ultimately reject continued state authority.
Stirner, Proudhon and Bakunin across the course
These thinkers should not be learnt as isolated profiles.
Their purpose is to help you demonstrate debates within anarchism.
Rejection of the state
Stirner: the state limits individual autonomy.
Proudhon: the state should be rejected through peaceful means.
Bakunin: oppressive state power must be abolished through revolution.
This develops rejection of the state, liberty and anarchy is order.
Economic freedom
Proudhon: mutualism replaces private property.
Bakunin: collectivisation replaces private property with common ownership.
Stirner: economic and social arrangements must remain compatible with individual autonomy.
The most clearly specified economic contrast is between Proudhon's mutualism and Bakunin's collectivisation, developing economic freedom and utopianism.
Collectivism and individualism
Stirner exemplifies egoism and individualism.
Bakunin exemplifies sociability and collectivist thinking.
Proudhon's mutualism is included within Edexcel's collectivist anarchist content, while his specified ideas also include opposition to collectivism.
This complexity is important when revising collectivist and individualist anarchism.
The next thinkers
Stirner, Proudhon and Bakunin should then be compared with the two remaining Edexcel anarchist thinkers in Kropotkin and Goldman.
The three thinkers at a glance
Area | Stirner | Proudhon | Bakunin |
Central idea | Egoism | Mutualism | Sociability and collectivisation |
Human nature | Rational and self-interested individual | Specification focus is principally economic freedom and the state | Strong human sociability |
Liberty | Individual autonomy | Private property restricts liberty and economic freedom | Oppressive political and economic power must disappear |
Economy | Individualist emphasis | Mutualism | Collectivisation |
Private property | Do not attribute a detailed property theory beyond the specification | Opposed | Abolished |
State | Rejected | Rejected | Abolished |
Method of change | Insurrection | Peaceful means | Propaganda by the deed and revolution |
Future society | Union of Egoists | Stateless society associated with mutualism | Stateless, collectivist society |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Use thinkers to illustrate agreements and disagreements within anarchism, rather than making each thinker a separate descriptive paragraph. The 2021 examiner report praised answers that deployed thinkers such as Proudhon to develop the debate between anarchist strands.
Examiner hint: Know the difference between insurrection and revolution precisely. The 2024 examiner report identified confusion here and stressed that Stirner's insurrection is distinct from an attempt to transform political, social and economic relations through revolution.
Examiner hint: The distinction remained an issue in 2025. Stronger answers were able to develop the difference between insurrection and direct action or revolution clearly, while weaker answers often blurred them together.
Examiner hint: Use the language of anarchism. The 2024 and 2025 reports found that accurate specialist vocabulary allowed candidates to produce shorter, sharper and more analytical answers. Terms particularly useful here include autonomy, insurrection, mutualism, collectivisation, power and liberty.
Examiner hint: Keep a 24-mark essay focused on extent. The strongest answers establish their line of argument in the introduction and make judgements throughout instead of saving all evaluation for the conclusion.
Examiner hint: Do not substitute a sequence of thinker profiles for comparative analysis. The 2025 report noted that weaker answers sometimes focused on what individual thinkers believed rather than using those beliefs to identify similarities and differences between anarchist strands.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying Stirner supports revolution
Why this is incorrect: The specification explicitly states that Stirner's Union of Egoists is brought about through insurrection, not overthrow of the state. Insurrection is not synonymous with revolution.
How to improve: Associate
Stirner = insurrection and Bakunin = revolution.
Mistake: Treating insurrection as simply another violent method
Why this is incorrect: Edexcel defines insurrection as an egoistic rather than primarily political or social act. Individuals elevate themselves above established institutions, leaving those institutions to decay.
How to improve: Explain the concept rather than merely writing that Stirner wants the state removed.
Mistake: Saying Proudhon supports collectivisation
Why this is incorrect: Proudhon's specified ideas explicitly include opposition to collectivism. His alternative to conventional private property is mutualism.
How to improve: Remember:
Proudhon = mutualism
Bakunin = collectivisation
Mistake: Saying mutualism means common ownership
Why this is incorrect: Mutualism involves equitable exchange between self-governing producers and allows small-scale property based on use or possession.
How to improve: Contrast it directly with Bakunin's collectivisation, which replaces private property with common ownership.
Mistake: Saying Bakunin thinks humans need government to make them co-operate
Why this is incorrect: Bakunin has a strong belief in human sociability.
How to improve: Connect his view of human nature to the anarchist claim that social order can emerge without coercive government.
Mistake: Treating propaganda by the deed as Proudhon's strategy
Why this is incorrect: Propaganda by the deed is one of Bakunin's specified ideas. Proudhon supports rejection and overthrow of the state through peaceful means.
How to improve:
Use the three-way distinction:
Stirner: insurrection
Proudhon: peaceful means
Bakunin: propaganda by the deed and revolution
Mistake: Adding detailed biography instead of learning the ideas
Why this is incorrect: The Edexcel specification explicitly states that the thinkers should be studied for their specified key ideas rather than detailed biography.
How to improve: For each thinker, learn the ideas Edexcel names and then practise applying them to debates about the state, human nature, liberty and the economy.
Mistake: Writing three thinker paragraphs in a 24-mark essay
Why this is incorrect: That structure can become descriptive and limit AO2 and AO3.
How to improve: Build paragraphs around debates such as why anarchists reject the state, how the state should disappear, or what a stateless society should look like, then use two or more thinkers comparatively.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Identify the thinker associated with the Union of Egoists. (1 mark)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Answer:
Max Stirner.
Question 2
Define collectivisation. (2 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Answer:
The abolition of private property and its replacement by a system of common ownership.
Question 3
Explain why Stirner's insurrection is different from revolution. (4 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
A strong response should explain that:
insurrection is explicitly not synonymous with revolution
it is egoistic rather than primarily a political or social act
individuals elevate themselves above established institutions
those institutions are then left to decay rather than being politically captured or transformed
Question 4
Explain Proudhon's argument for mutualism. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Credit developed explanation that:
Proudhon opposes conventional private property because it limits liberty and economic freedom
he also opposes collectivism
mutualism provides his alternative
mutualism involves equitable exchange between self-governing producers
producers may be organised individually or in association
small-scale property is based upon use or possession
Question 5
Explain the relationship between Bakunin's view of human sociability and his support for collectivisation. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
A developed answer should explain that:
Bakunin believes strongly in human sociability
humans are therefore capable of social and co-operative relationships without state coercion
he supports abolition of private property
private property should be replaced by collectivisation
collectivisation involves common ownership
his view of sociable human nature therefore supports the possibility of a collectively organised economy without the state
Question 6
Compare Stirner's and Bakunin's explanations of how a stateless society can produce order. (8 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
A strong response could explain that:
Stirner:
emphasises the rational, self-interested individual
rejects state restrictions on autonomy
envisages the Union of Egoists
order can therefore emerge through free association between liberated individuals
Bakunin:
emphasises human sociability
believes humans can form co-operative relationships
supports collectivisation
order can therefore emerge collectively without coercive political authority
Comparison:
Both reject the state and believe stateless order is possible, but they reach that conclusion from contrasting individualist and collectivist understandings of human nature.
Question 7
Compare the approaches of Stirner, Proudhon and Bakunin to removing the state. (8 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
A strong response should distinguish:
Stirner: insurrection rather than political overthrow
Proudhon: rejection and overthrow of the state through peaceful means
Bakunin: propaganda by the deed to spark revolution and abolition of oppressive state power
The strongest answers should identify the common anarchist rejection of continued state authority while explaining that the route towards statelessness differs substantially.
Question 8
To what extent do Stirner, Proudhon and Bakunin demonstrate that anarchists disagree more about how to achieve a stateless society than about the need for one? (24 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
A high-level answer should use the thinkers to analyse wider agreements and tensions within anarchism rather than simply describing each thinker.
Argument 1: Strong agreement that the state must disappear
All three reject continued state authority.
Stirner sees the state as restricting the autonomy of the individual.
Proudhon supports rejection and overthrow of the state.
Bakunin argues that oppressive state power requires abolition.
This reflects the foundational anarchist rejection of coercive political authority.
Interim judgement: The ultimate rejection of the state provides significant common ground.
Argument 2: Major disagreement over how the state disappears
The methods differ sharply:
Stirner supports insurrection
Proudhon supports peaceful means
Bakunin supports propaganda by the deed leading to revolution
Stirner's insurrection is particularly distinctive because it is not synonymous with revolution.
Interim judgement: The route to statelessness creates much greater disagreement than the final rejection of state authority.
Argument 3: Different views of human nature shape the future society
Stirner centres politics on the rational, self-interested individual and envisages a Union of Egoists.
Bakunin emphasises human sociability and believes co-operative social order can develop without government.
Proudhon's mutualism provides another vision based upon self-governing producers.
Interim judgement: Agreement that stateless order is possible masks substantial disagreement about why it is possible and what that order will look like.
Argument 4: Economic disagreement reinforces the division
Proudhon opposes both conventional private property and collectivism, supporting mutualism.
Bakunin seeks the abolition of private property and its replacement by collectivisation.
Stirner illustrates the individualist rather than collectivist strand.
These differences demonstrate that removing the state does not produce one agreed anarchist economic model.
Overall judgement
A well-supported conclusion could argue that Stirner, Proudhon and Bakunin demonstrate strong agreement on anarchism's ultimate rejection of the state but profound disagreement about the transition towards statelessness and the society that should emerge afterwards. Their agreement is therefore strongest at the level of the fundamental anarchist principle, while differences over insurrection, peaceful change, revolution, human nature and economic organisation reveal substantial tensions within the ideology.
Comments