450 lines
22 KiB
Plaintext
450 lines
22 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|
|
non serviam #8
|
|
**************
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contents: Editor's Word
|
|
Ken Knudson: A Critique of Communism and
|
|
The Individualist Alternative (serial: 8)
|
|
|
|
***********************************************************************
|
|
|
|
Editor's Word
|
|
_____________
|
|
|
|
In this issue, Ken's article comes on its own. Todays chapter is an
|
|
exposition of his ideas on egoism, viewed from a political point of
|
|
view. Nothing more needs to be said. Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
Svein Olav
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Ken Knudson:
|
|
|
|
A Critique of Communism
|
|
and
|
|
The Individualist Alternative
|
|
(continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EGOISM: THE PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM
|
|
|
|
"Many a year I've used my nose
|
|
To smell the onion and the rose;
|
|
Is there any proof which shows
|
|
That I've a right to that same nose?"
|
|
|
|
- Johann Christoph Friedrich Schiller
|
|
|
|
The philosophy of individualist-anarchism is "egoism."
|
|
It is not my purpose here to give a detailed account of this
|
|
philosophy, but I would like to explode a few of the more
|
|
common myths about egoism and present to the reader enough
|
|
of its essence so that he may understand more clearly the
|
|
section on individualist economics. I am tempted here to
|
|
quote long extracts from "The Ego and His Own," for it was
|
|
this book which first presented the egoist philosophy in a
|
|
systematic way. Unfortunately, I find that Stirner's
|
|
"unique" style does not readily lend itself to quotation.
|
|
So what I have done in the following pages is to dress up
|
|
Stirner's ideas in a language largely my own.
|
|
|
|
Voltaire once said, "If God did not exist, it would be
|
|
necessary to invent him." Bakunin wisely retorted, "If God
|
|
DID exist, it would be necessary to abolish him."
|
|
Unfortunately, Bakunin would only abolish God. It is the
|
|
egoist's intention to abolish GODS. It is clear from
|
|
Bakunin's writings that what he meant by God was what
|
|
Voltaire meant - namely the religious God. The egoist sees
|
|
many more gods than that - in fact, as many as there are
|
|
fixed ideas. Bakunin's gods, for example, include the god
|
|
of humanity, the god of brotherhood, the god of mankind -
|
|
all variants on the god of altruism. The egoist, in
|
|
striking down ALL gods, looks only to his WILL. He
|
|
recognises no legitimate power over himself.* The world is
|
|
there for him to consume - if he CAN. And he can if he has
|
|
the power. For the egoist, the only right is the right of
|
|
might. He accepts no "inalienable rights," for such rights -
|
|
by virtue of the fact that they're inalienable - must come
|
|
from a higher power, some god. The American Declaration of
|
|
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
* He does not, of course, claim to be omnipotent. There
|
|
ARE external powers over him. The difference between the
|
|
egoist and non-egoist in this regard is therefore one mainly
|
|
of attitude: the egoist recognises external power as an
|
|
enemy and consciously fights against it, while the non-
|
|
egoist humbles himself before it and often accepts it as a
|
|
friend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 33 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Independence, for example, in proclaiming these rights found
|
|
it necessary to invoke the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's
|
|
God." The same was true of the French Revolutionary
|
|
"Declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen."
|
|
|
|
The egoist recognises no right - or what amounts to the
|
|
same thing - claims ALL rights for himself. What he can get
|
|
by force he has a right to; and what he can't, he has no
|
|
right. He demands no rights, nor does he recognise them in
|
|
others. "Right - is a wheel in the head, put there by a
|
|
spook," [73] says Stirner. Right is also the spook which has
|
|
kept men servile throughout the ages. The believer in rights
|
|
has always been his own jailer. What sovereign could last
|
|
the day out without a general belief in the "divine right of
|
|
kings"? And where would Messrs. Nixon, Heath, et. al. be
|
|
today without the "right" of the majority?
|
|
|
|
Men make their tyrants as they make their gods. The
|
|
tyrant is a man like any other. His power comes from the
|
|
abdicated power of his subjects. If people believe a man to
|
|
have superhuman powers, they automatically GIVE him those
|
|
powers by default. Had Hitler's pants fallen down during one
|
|
of his ranting speeches, the whole course of history might
|
|
have been different. For who can respect a naked Fuehrer?
|
|
And who knows? The beginning of the end of Lyndon Johnson's
|
|
political career might well have been when he showed his
|
|
operation scar on coast-to-coast television for the whole
|
|
wide world to see that he really was a man after all. This
|
|
sentiment was expressed by Stirner when he said, "Idols
|
|
exist through me; I need only refrain from creating them
|
|
anew, then they exist no longer: `higher powers' exist only
|
|
through my exalting them and abasing myself. Consequently
|
|
my relation to the world is this: I no longer do anything
|
|
for it `for God's sake,' I do nothing `for man's sake,' but
|
|
what I do I do `for my sake'." [74] The one thing that makes
|
|
a man different from any other living creature is his power
|
|
to reason. It is by this power that man can (and does)
|
|
dominate over the world. Without reason man would be a
|
|
pathetic non-entity - evolution having taken care of him
|
|
long before the dinosaur. Now some people say that man is
|
|
by nature a social animal, something like an ant or a bee.
|
|
Egoists don't deny the sociability of man, but what we do
|
|
say is that man is sociable to the extent that it serves his
|
|
own self-interest. Basically man is (by nature, if you will)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 34 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a selfish being. The evidence for this is overwhelming.* Let
|
|
us look at a hive of bees to see what would happen if
|
|
"reason" were suddenly introduced into their lives:
|
|
|
|
"In the first place, the bees would not fail to try
|
|
some new industrial process; for instance, that of making
|
|
their cells round or square. All sorts of systems and
|
|
inventions would be tried, until long experience, aided by
|
|
geometry, should show them that the hexagonal shape is the
|
|
best. Then insurrections would occur. The drones would be
|
|
told to provide for themselves, and the queens to labour;
|
|
jealousy would spread among the labourers; discords would
|
|
burst forth; soon each one would want to produce on his own
|
|
account; and finally the hive would be abandoned, and the
|
|
bees would perish. Evil would be introduced into the honey-
|
|
producing republic by the power of reflection, - the very
|
|
faculty which ought to constitute its glory." [75]
|
|
|
|
So it would appear to me that reason would militate
|
|
against blind, selfless cooperation. But by the same token,
|
|
reason leads to cooperation which is mutually beneficial to
|
|
all parties concerned. Such cooperation is what Stirner
|
|
called a "union of egoists." [76] This binding together is
|
|
not done through any innate social instinct, but rather as a
|
|
matter of individual convenience. These unions would
|
|
probably take the form of contracting individuals. The
|
|
object of these contracts not being to enable all to benefit
|
|
equally from their union (although this isn't ruled out, the
|
|
egoist thinks it highly unlikely), but rather to protect one
|
|
another from invasion and to secure to each contracting
|
|
individual what is mutually agreed upon to be "his."
|
|
|
|
By referring to a man's selfishness, you know where you
|
|
stand. Nothing is done "for free." Equity demands
|
|
reciprocity. Goods and services are exchanged for goods and
|
|
services or (what is equivalent) bought. This may sound
|
|
"heartless" - but what is the alternative? If one depends on
|
|
kindness, pity or love the services and goods one gets
|
|
become "charity." The receiver is put in the position of a
|
|
beggar, offering nothing in return for each "present." If
|
|
you've ever been on the dole, or know anyone who has, you
|
|
will know that the receiver of such gifts is anything but
|
|
gracious. He is stripped of his manhood and he resents it.
|
|
Now the egoist isn't (usually) so cold and cruel as this
|
|
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
* Many people cite trade unions as a "proof" of man's
|
|
solidarity and sociability. Just the opposite is true. Why
|
|
else do people strike if not for their own "selfish" ends,
|
|
e.g. higher wages, better working conditions, shorter hours?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 35 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
description makes him out to be. As often as not he is as
|
|
charitable and kind as his altruist neighbour. But he
|
|
CHOOSES the objects of his kindness; he objects to
|
|
COMPULSORY "love." What an absurdity! If love were
|
|
universal, it would have no meaning. If I should tell my
|
|
wife that I love her because I love humanity, I would be
|
|
insulting her. I love her not because she happens to be a
|
|
member of the human race, but rather for what she is to me.
|
|
For me she is something special: she possesses certain
|
|
qualities which I admire and which make me happy. If she is
|
|
unhappy, I suffer, and therefore I try to comfort her and
|
|
cheer her up - for MY sake. Such love is a selfish love. But
|
|
it is the only REAL love. Anything else is an infatuation
|
|
with an image, a ghost. As Stirner said of his loved ones,
|
|
"I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them
|
|
because love makes ME happy, I love because loving is
|
|
natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no `commandment
|
|
of love'." [77]
|
|
|
|
The lover of "humanity" is bewitched by a superstition.
|
|
He has dethroned God, only to accept the reign of the holy
|
|
trinity: Morality, Conscience and Duty. He becomes a "true
|
|
believer" - a religious man. No longer believing in himself,
|
|
he becomes a slave to Man. Then, like all religious men, he
|
|
is overcome with feelings of "right" and "virtue." He
|
|
becomes a soldier in the service of humanity whose
|
|
intolerance of heretics rivals that of the most righteous
|
|
religious fanatic. Most of the misery in the world today (as
|
|
in the past) is directly attributable to men acting "for the
|
|
common good." The individual is nothing; the mass all.
|
|
|
|
The egoist would reverse this situation. Instead of
|
|
everyone looking after the welfare of everyone else, each
|
|
would look after his own welfare. This would, in one fell
|
|
swoop, do away with the incredibly complicated, wasteful and
|
|
tyrannical machinery (alluded to previously) necessary to
|
|
see to it that not only everyone got his fair share of the
|
|
communal pie, but that everyone contributed fairly to its
|
|
production. In its stead we egoists raise the banner of free
|
|
competition: "the war of all against all" as the communists
|
|
put it. But wouldn't that lead to (dare I say it) ANARCHY?
|
|
Of course it would. What anarchist would deny the logical
|
|
consequences of the principles he advocates? But let's see
|
|
what this "anarchy" would be like.
|
|
|
|
The egoist believes that the relationships between men
|
|
who are alive to their own individual interests would be far
|
|
more just and equitable than they are now. Take the
|
|
property question for example. Today there is a great
|
|
disparity of income. Americans make up about 7% of the
|
|
world's population, but they control over half of its
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 36 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wealth. And among the Americans, nearly one quarter of the
|
|
wealth is owned by 5% of the people.* [78] Such unequal
|
|
distribution of wealth is due primarily to the LEGAL
|
|
institution of property. Without the state to back up legal
|
|
privilege and without the people's acquiescence to the
|
|
privileged minority's legal right to that property, these
|
|
disparities would soon disappear. For what makes the rich
|
|
man rich and the poor man poor if not the latter GIVING the
|
|
former the product of his labour?
|
|
|
|
Stirner is commonly thought to have concerned himself
|
|
little with the economic consequences of his philosophy. It
|
|
is true that he avoided elaborating on the exact nature of
|
|
his "union of egoists," saying that the only way of knowing
|
|
what a slave will do when he breaks his chains is to wait
|
|
and see. But to say that Stirner was oblivious to economics
|
|
is just not so. On the contrary. It was he, after all, who
|
|
translated into German both Adam Smith's classic "An Inquiry
|
|
into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" and
|
|
Jean Baptiste Say's pioneering work on the free market
|
|
economy, "Traite d'Economie Politique." The few pages he
|
|
devotes to economics in "The Ego and His Own" are among his
|
|
best:
|
|
|
|
"If we assume that, as ORDER belongs to the essence of the
|
|
State, so SUBORDINATION too is founded in its nature, then
|
|
we see that the subordinates, or those who have received
|
|
preferment, disproportionately OVERCHARGE and OVERREACH
|
|
those who are put in the lower ranks....By what then is your
|
|
property secure, you creatures of preferment?...By our
|
|
refraining from interference! And so by OUR protection! And
|
|
what do you give us for it? Kicks and disdain you give to
|
|
the `common people'; police supervision, and a catechism
|
|
with the chief sentence `Respect what is NOT YOURS, what
|
|
belongs to OTHERS! respect others, and especially your
|
|
superiors!' But we reply, `If you want our respect, BUY it
|
|
for a price agreeable to us. We will leave you your
|
|
property, if you give a due equivalent for this
|
|
leaving.'...What equivalent do you give for our chewing
|
|
potatoes and looking calmly on while you swallow oysters?
|
|
Only buy the oysters of us as dear as we have to buy the
|
|
potatoes of you, then you may go on eating them. Or do you
|
|
suppose the oysters do not belong to us as much as to
|
|
you?...Let us consider our nearer property, labour...We
|
|
distress ourselves twelve hours in the sweat of our face,
|
|
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
* Contrary to popular belief, this gulf is getting
|
|
larger. Since 1966, despite a constantly mushrooming GNP,
|
|
the American factory workers' REAL wages (as opposed to his
|
|
apparent, inflationary wages) have actually declined. [79]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 37 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and you offer us a few pennies for it. Then take the like
|
|
for your labour too. Are you not willing? You fancy that our
|
|
labour is richly repaid with that wage, while yours on the
|
|
other hand is worth a wage of many thousands. But, if you
|
|
did not rate yours so high, and gave us a better chance to
|
|
realise value from ours, then we might well, if the case
|
|
demanded it, bring to pass still more important things than
|
|
you do for the many thousand pounds; and, if you got only
|
|
such wages as we, you would soon grow more industrious in
|
|
order to receive more. But, if you render any service that
|
|
seems to us worth ten and a hundred times more than our own
|
|
labour, why, then you shall get a hundred times more for it
|
|
too; we, on the other hand, think also to produce for you
|
|
things for which you will requite us more highly than with
|
|
the ordinary day's wages. We shall be willing to get along
|
|
with each other all right, if only we have first agreed on
|
|
this - that neither any longer needs to - PRESENT anything
|
|
to the other....We want nothing presented by you, but
|
|
neither will we present you with anything. For centuries we
|
|
have handed alms to you from good-hearted - stupidity, have
|
|
doled out the mite of the poor and given to the masters the
|
|
things that are - not the masters'; now just open your
|
|
wallet, for henceforth our ware rises in price quite
|
|
enormously. We do not want to take from you anything,
|
|
anything at all, only you are to pay better for what you
|
|
want to have. What then have you? `I have an estate of a
|
|
thousand acres.' And I am your plowman, and will henceforth
|
|
attend to your fields only for a full day's wages. `Then
|
|
I'll take another.' You won't find any, for we plowmen are
|
|
no longer doing otherwise, and, if one puts in an appearance
|
|
who takes less, then let him beware of us. There is the
|
|
housemaid, she too is now demanding as much, and you will no
|
|
longer find one below this price. `Why, then it is all over
|
|
with me.' Not so fast! You will doubtless take in as much as
|
|
we; and, if it should not be so, we will take off so much
|
|
that you shall have wherewith to live like us. `But I am
|
|
accustomed to live better.' We have nothing against that,
|
|
but it is not our lookout; if you can clear more, go ahead.
|
|
Are we to hire out under rates, that you may have a good
|
|
living? The rich man always puts off the poor with the
|
|
words, `What does your want concern me? See to it how you
|
|
make your way through the world; that is YOUR AFFAIR, not
|
|
mine.' Well, let us let it be our affair, then, and let us
|
|
not let the means that we have to realise value from
|
|
ourselves be pilfered from us by the rich. `But you
|
|
uncultured people really do not need so much.' Well, we are
|
|
taking somewhat more in order that for it we may procure the
|
|
culture that we perhaps need....`O ill-starred equality!'
|
|
No, my good old sir, nothing of equality. We only want to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 38 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
count for what we are worth, and, if you are worth more, you
|
|
shall count for more right along. We only want to be WORTH
|
|
OUR PRICE, and think to show ourselves worth the price that
|
|
you will pay." [80]
|
|
|
|
Fifty years later Benjamin Tucker took over where
|
|
Stirner left off:
|
|
|
|
"The minute you remove privilege, the class that now enjoy
|
|
it will be forced to sell their labour, and then, when there
|
|
will be nothing but labour with which to buy labour, the
|
|
distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be
|
|
wiped out, and every man will be a labourer exchanging with
|
|
fellow-labourers. Not to abolish wages, but to make EVERY
|
|
man dependent upon wages and secure to every man his WHOLE
|
|
wages is the aim of Anarchistic Socialism. What Anarchistic
|
|
Socialism aims to abolish is usury. It does not want to
|
|
deprive labour of its reward; it wants to deprive capital of
|
|
its reward. It does not hold that labour should not be sold;
|
|
it holds that capital should not be hired at usury." [81]
|
|
|
|
Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his second inaugural
|
|
address that "We have always known that heedless self-
|
|
interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad
|
|
economics." I've tried to show in this section that self-
|
|
interest is "good morals." I now intend to show that it is
|
|
also good economics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-----
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73. Stirner, op. cit., p. 210.
|
|
|
|
74. Ibid., p. 319.
|
|
|
|
75. Proudhon, op. cit., pp. 243-4.
|
|
|
|
76. Stirner, op. cit., p. 179.
|
|
|
|
77. Ibid., p. 291.
|
|
|
|
78. "At the Summit of the Affluent U.S. Society," "The
|
|
International Herald Tribune." March 19, 1971, p. 1.
|
|
|
|
79. "Newsweek," February 1, 1971 , p. 44.
|
|
|
|
80. Stirner, op. cit., pp. 270-2.
|
|
|
|
81. Tucker, "Instead of a Book," p. 404. Reprinted from
|
|
"Liberty," April 28, 1888.
|
|
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
***********************************************************************
|
|
* EGOTIST, n.: *
|
|
* A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me. *
|
|
* *
|
|
* From "The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce *
|
|
***********************************************************************
|
|
|