The economic corner-stones of personalist Sociality are, as Duehring's follower, Emil Doele,[2] explains, "metallic currency as the foundation of all economic relationships, and individual property, especially capital, as the necessary and inviolable foundation for every condition that is not based on robbery and violence. The logic and necessity of any form of society rests on private property, and that is also the basis of Duehring's system; but his reforms are directed to rejecting the ingredients of injustice, robbery, and violence towards persons that are commingled with these fundamental forms. To bring this about, the principle under which the merely economic mechanics of values have free play must be rejected; and instead of it, the original personal and political rights of men must be recognised. Duehring therefore regards a general association of workers as far more essential than strikes, and would wish political means (in the narrower sense of politics) brought once more into the foreground, and extended much farther than before. He certainly rejects the trickery of Parliament, but not a representation of the working classes seriously meant and honourably carried out. He also does not yield to that logic of wretchedness which expects every reform to arise from ever-increasing misery, but takes into account material and mental progress and the condition of the masses." [2] Doele, _Eugen Duehring, etwas von dessen Charakter, Leistungen, und reformatorischen Beruf_, Leipzig, 1893. Compare also Fr. Engel's, Duehring's _Umwaelzung der Wissenschaft_, 3d ed. Stuttgart, 1894. In all this it is easy to recognise Proudhon's views; even sometimes his theory of property. And even if their views are not alike formally, and Duehring does not quite understand Proudhon's "Mutualism," yet he ought to have regarded the French social reformer somewhat less condescendingly and confusedly. But he has also had a very low opinion of Stirner; yet, however persistently he and his followers may deny it, Duehring's "Personalism" is not only exactly the same as Stirner's "individual" (_Einziger_), but Duehring himself is the most repellent illustration of the egoist-individual of Stirner. Both Stirner and Proudhon have assumed as the necessary pre-supposition of the abolition of government, individuals who are able to govern themselves, _i. e._, moral individuals, which means "persons."