455 lines
22 KiB
Plaintext
455 lines
22 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|
|
|
|
non serviam #6
|
|
**************
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contents: Editor's Word
|
|
Ken Knudson: A Critique of Communism and
|
|
The Individualist Alternative (serial: 6)
|
|
|
|
***********************************************************************
|
|
|
|
Editor's Word
|
|
_____________
|
|
|
|
There are three main proponents of egoism known today, Max Stirner,
|
|
Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand. Each of them has a very distinct
|
|
approach to egoism. While Rand has a very conceptual approach, asking
|
|
"who is the right beneficiary of a man's action" [1], Stirner takes
|
|
an almost opposite path, rejecting any "justification" outside himself,
|
|
in that the root of his egoism is to find in the einzige - the unique,
|
|
individual person. Nietzsche speaks about a "will to power" of a
|
|
thousand little emotional sub-selves that make out the total self,
|
|
while for Rand the self is the mind - the intellect - alone. Stirner
|
|
is close to the existentialist camp in his focus on the unique choice,
|
|
by his focus on the "creative nothing" which creates itself, while
|
|
Nietzsche, who believed himself to descend from Polish nobility,
|
|
emphasizes "fate" [amor fati] and belonging to the blood one is born
|
|
into.
|
|
|
|
So, we see there are more than enough choices of ones "egoism". Instead
|
|
of embracing one alternative and denouncing the other two as the false
|
|
- and possibly even evil - egoisms, I will try to explain in general (*)
|
|
outlines why I have chosen to emphasize one of them - namely Stirner+s.
|
|
|
|
Stirner is often described as a nominalist, one to whom concepts and/or
|
|
universals have no meaning outside groupings made by observers. I have
|
|
an opposite opinion on that: For Stirner, the road to egoism is seen as
|
|
going through Idealism, not outside. He recognizes ideals and thoughts,
|
|
only does not - surrender to them. Stirners "anti-conceptualism" is to
|
|
be found late in his book: "The conceptual question 'what is man?' -
|
|
has then changed into the personal question 'who is man?' With 'what'
|
|
the concept was sought for, in order to realize it; with 'who' it is no
|
|
longer any question at all, but the answer is personally on hand at
|
|
once in the asker: the question ansers itself." "... no -concept-
|
|
expresses me, nothing that is designated as my essence exhausts me;
|
|
they are only names." This is his insistence on his uniqueness as an
|
|
individual. An insistence not found equally strong by Nietzsche or by
|
|
Rand. Where the latter focusses strongly on abstract "Man" (**), whose
|
|
moral characteristics follow from the possession of reason, the former
|
|
at times (***) goes as far as negating the individual in his quest for
|
|
the "Ubermensch", the super-man, which is supposed to fulfill some
|
|
longing to go beyond oneself and beyond the transitory stage of Man: [2]
|
|
Man is but a rope over the abyss between the animal and the Ubermensch.
|
|
|
|
So, Stirner is unique in his emphasis on uniqueness. This is the central
|
|
element in Stirner+s thought - the first-person and particular view-
|
|
point, the me-outlook, as opposed to the third-person and general view-
|
|
point. The third-person, gemeral view-point is for him justified only
|
|
insofar as it is grounded in the me-outlook. "Away, then, with every
|
|
cause that is not altogether _my_ cause!"
|
|
|
|
Among the three, Stirner is the only one who makes no claim for anyone
|
|
as to how they should live, or what is suitable for their "kind", but
|
|
leaves it totally to individual choice. This is why I prefer Stirner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Svein Olav
|
|
|
|
[1] The Ayn Rand Lexicon
|
|
[2] Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra".
|
|
|
|
(*) {The field is now open: Anyone wanting to express their unique path
|
|
to egoism and why it has taken the form it has is invited to write
|
|
such an article. If you want, make it an autobiography. Myself, I
|
|
plan a more comprehensive article later. This was a start.}
|
|
|
|
(**){There is an open question of whether, and if so to which degree,
|
|
Stirner's criticism of Feuerbach's "Man" is applicable to Rand's
|
|
concept of "Man" as in "qua man". Perhaps subject for a later
|
|
article.}
|
|
|
|
(***){Nietzsche is no systematic philosopher, and so one can find
|
|
support both for and against egoism in his writing.}
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Ken Knudson:
|
|
|
|
A Critique of Communism
|
|
and
|
|
The Individualist Alternative
|
|
(continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVOLUTION: THE ROAD TO FREEDOM?
|
|
|
|
"It's true that non-violence has been a dismal failure.
|
|
The only bigger failure has been violence."
|
|
- Joan Baez
|
|
|
|
There's an old story about a motorist who stopped a
|
|
policeman in downtown Manhattan and asked him how he could
|
|
get to the Brooklyn Bridge. The officer looked around,
|
|
thought a minute, scratched his head and finally replied,
|
|
"I'm sorry, but you can't get there from here. Some
|
|
anarchists are now wondering if you can get to the free
|
|
society from where we stand today. I must confess that I,
|
|
too, harbour some doubts. But if there is a way, it is
|
|
incumbent upon all who wish to find that way to carefully
|
|
examine the important end-means problem.
|
|
|
|
"The end justifies the means." Few people would argue
|
|
with this trite statement. Certainly all apologists of
|
|
government must ultimately fall back on such reasoning to
|
|
justify their large police forces and standing armies.
|
|
Revolutionary anarchists must also rely on this argument to
|
|
justify their authoritarian methods "just one more time",
|
|
the revolution being for them "the unfreedom to end
|
|
unfreedom." It seems that the only people who reject
|
|
outright this article of faith are a handful of (mostly
|
|
religious) pacifists. The question I'd like to consider
|
|
here is not whether the end JUSTIFIES the means (because I,
|
|
too, tend to feel that it does), but rather whether the end
|
|
is AFFECTED by the means and, if so, to what extent.
|
|
|
|
That the end is affected by the means should be
|
|
obvious. Whether I obtain your watch by swindling you,
|
|
buying it from you, stealing it from you, or soliciting it
|
|
as a gift from you makes the same watch "graft", "my
|
|
property", "booty", or "a donation." The same can be said
|
|
for social change. Even so strong an advocate of violent
|
|
revolution as Herbert Marcuse, in one of his rare lapses
|
|
into sanity, realised this fact:
|
|
|
|
"Unless the revolution itself progresses through freedom,
|
|
the need for domination and repression would be carried over
|
|
into the new society and the fateful separation between the
|
|
`immediate' and the `true' interest of the individuals would
|
|
be almost inevitable; the individuals would become the
|
|
objects of their own liberation, and freedom would be a
|
|
matter of administration and decree. Progress would be
|
|
progressive repression, and the `delay' in freedom would
|
|
threaten to become self-propelling and self-perpetuating."
|
|
[56]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 25 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But despite the truth of Marcuse's observation, we still
|
|
find many anarchists looking for a shortcut to freedom by
|
|
means of violent revolution. The idea that anarchism can be
|
|
inaugurated by violence is as fallacious as the idea that it
|
|
can be sustained by violence. The best that can be said for
|
|
violence is that it may, in rare circumstances, be used as
|
|
an expedient to save us from extinction. But the
|
|
individualist's rejection of violence (except in cases of
|
|
self-defence) is not due to any lofty pacifist principles;
|
|
it's a matter of pure pragmatism: we realise that violence
|
|
just simply does not work.
|
|
|
|
The task of anarchism, as the individualist sees it, is
|
|
not to destroy the state, but rather to destroy the MYTH of
|
|
the state. Once people realise that they no longer need the
|
|
state, it will - in the words of Frederick Engels -
|
|
inevitably "wither away" ("Anti-Duehring", 1877) and be
|
|
consigned to the "Museum of Antiquities, by the side of the
|
|
spinning wheel and the bronze axe" ("Origin of the Family,
|
|
Private Property and the State", 1884). But unless
|
|
anarchists can create a general and well-grounded disbelief
|
|
in the state as an INSTITUTION, the existing state might be
|
|
destroyed by violent revolution or it might fall through its
|
|
own rottenness, but another would inevitably rise in its
|
|
place. And why shouldn't it? As long as people believe the
|
|
state to be necessary (even a "necessary evil", as Thomas
|
|
Paine said), the state will always exist.
|
|
|
|
We have already seen how Kropotkin would usher in the
|
|
millennium by the complete expropriation of all property.
|
|
"We must see clearly in private property what it really is,
|
|
a conscious or unconscious robbery of the substance of all,
|
|
and seize it joyfully for the common benefit." [57] He
|
|
cheerfully goes on to say, "The instinct of destruction, so
|
|
natural and so just...will find ample room for
|
|
satisfaction." [58] Kropotkin's modern-day heirs are no
|
|
different. Noam Chomsky, writing in the "New York Review of
|
|
Books" and reprinted in a recent issue of "Anarchy",
|
|
applauds the heroism of the Paris Commune of 1871,
|
|
mentioning only in passing that "the Commune, of course [!],
|
|
was drowned in blood." [59] Later in the same article he
|
|
writes, "What is far more important is that these ideas
|
|
[direct workers' control] have been realised in spontaneous
|
|
revolutionary action, for example in Germany and Italy after
|
|
World War I and in Spain (specifically, industrial
|
|
Barcelona) in 1936." [60] What Chomsky apparently finds
|
|
relatively UNimportant are the million-odd corpses which
|
|
were the direct result of these "spontaneous revolutionary
|
|
actions." He also somehow manages to ignore the fact that
|
|
the three countries he mentions - Germany, Italy and Spain -
|
|
were without exception victims of fascism within a few years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 26 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of these glorious revolutions. One doesn't need a great deal
|
|
of insight to be able to draw a parallel between these
|
|
"spontaneous" actions with their reactionary aftermaths and
|
|
the spontaneous "trashings" which are currently in fashion
|
|
in the United States. But it seems the Weathermen really DO
|
|
"need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." [61]
|
|
|
|
The question of how to attain the anarchist society has
|
|
divided anarchists nearly as much as the question of what
|
|
the anarchist society actually is. While Bakunin insisted on
|
|
the necessity of "bloody revolutions" [62], Proudhon
|
|
believed that violence was unnecessary - saying instead that
|
|
"reason will serve us better." [63] The same discord was
|
|
echoed on the other side of the Atlantic some decades later
|
|
when, in the wake of the infamous Haymarket bombing, the
|
|
issue of violence came to a head. Benjamin Tucker, writing
|
|
in the columns of "Liberty", had this to say about
|
|
accusations leveled against him by Johann Most, the
|
|
communist-anarchist editor of "Freiheit":
|
|
|
|
"It makes very little difference to Herr Most what a man
|
|
believes in economics. The test of fellowship with him lies
|
|
in acceptance of dynamite as a cure-all. Though I should
|
|
prove that my economic views, if realised, would turn our
|
|
social system inside out, he would not therefore regard me
|
|
as a revolutionist. He declares outright that I am no
|
|
revolutionist, because the thought of the coming revolution
|
|
(by dynamite, he means) makes my flesh creep. Well, I
|
|
frankly confess that I take no pleasure in the thought of
|
|
bloodshed and mutilation and death. At these things my
|
|
feelings revolt. And if delight in them is a requisite of a
|
|
revolutionist, then indeed I am no revolutionist. When
|
|
revolutionist and cannibal become synonyms, count me out, if
|
|
you please. But, though my feelings revolt, I am not
|
|
mastered by them or made a coward by them. More than from
|
|
dynamite and blood do I shrink from the thought of a
|
|
permanent system of society involving the slow starvation of
|
|
the most industrious and deserving of its members. If I
|
|
should ever become convinced that the policy of bloodshed is
|
|
necessary to end our social system, the loudest of today's
|
|
shriekers for blood would not surpass me in the stoicism
|
|
with which I would face the inevitable. Indeed, a plumb-
|
|
liner to the last, I am confident that under such
|
|
circumstances many who now think me chicken-hearted would
|
|
condemn the stony-heartedness with which I should favour the
|
|
utter sacrifice of every feeling of pity to the necessities
|
|
of the terroristic policy. Neither fear nor sentimentalism,
|
|
then, dictates my opposition to forcible methods. Such being
|
|
the case, how stupid, how unfair, in Herr Most, to picture
|
|
me as crossing myself at the mention of the word revolution
|
|
simply because I steadfastly act on my well-known belief
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 27 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that force cannot substitute truth for a lie in political
|
|
economy!" [64]
|
|
|
|
It is this issue of economics which generally sorts
|
|
anarchists into the violent and non-violent wings of
|
|
anarchism. Individualists, by and large, are pacifists in
|
|
practice (if not in theory), whereas the communists tend
|
|
toward violent revolution.* Why is this so? One reason I
|
|
think is that individualists are more concerned with
|
|
changing the conditions which directly affect their lives
|
|
than they are with reforming the whole world "for the good
|
|
of all." The communists, on the other hand, have a more
|
|
evangelical spirit. Like all good missionaries, they are out
|
|
to convert the unbeliever - whether he likes it or not. And
|
|
inevitably this leads to violence. Another reason communists
|
|
are more prone to violence than individualists can be found,
|
|
I think, in looking at the nature of the force each is
|
|
willing to use to secure and sustain his respective system.
|
|
Individualists believe that the only justifiable force is
|
|
force used in preventing invasion (i.e. defensive force).
|
|
Communists, however, would compel the worker to pool his
|
|
products with the products of others and forbid him to sell
|
|
his labour or the products of his labour. To "compel" and
|
|
"forbid" requires the use of offensive force. It is no
|
|
wonder, then, that most communists advocate violence to
|
|
achieve their objectives.
|
|
|
|
If freedom is really what we anarchists crack it up to
|
|
be, it shouldn't be necessary to force it down the throat of
|
|
anyone. What an absurdity! Even so superficial a writer as
|
|
Agatha Christie recognised that "if it is not possible to go
|
|
back [from freedom], or to choose to go back, then it is not
|
|
freedom." [66] A. J. Muste used to say that "there is no way
|
|
to peace - peace IS the way." The same thing is true about
|
|
freedom: the only way to freedom is BY freedom. This
|
|
statement is so nearly tautological that it should not need
|
|
saying. The only way to realise anarchy is for a sufficient
|
|
number of people to be convinced that their own interests
|
|
demand it. Human society does not run on idealism - it runs
|
|
on pragmatism. And unless people can be made to realise that
|
|
anarchy actually works for THEIR benefit, it will remain
|
|
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
* There are exceptions of course. It is hard to imagine
|
|
a more dedicated pacifist than Tolstoy, for example. On the
|
|
other side of the coin is Stirner, who quotes with near
|
|
relish the French Revolutionary slogan "the world will have
|
|
no rest till the last king is hanged with the guts of the
|
|
last priest." [65]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 28 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what it is today: an idle pipe dream; "a nice theory, but
|
|
unrealistic." It is the anarchist's job to convince people
|
|
otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Herbert Spencer - the great evolutionist of whom Darwin
|
|
said, "He is about a dozen times my superior" - observed the
|
|
following fact of nature:
|
|
|
|
"Metamorphosis is the universal law, exemplified throughout
|
|
the Heavens and on the Earth: especially throughout the
|
|
organic world; and above all in the animal division of it.
|
|
No creature, save the simplest and most minute, commences
|
|
its existence in a form like that which it eventually
|
|
assumes; and in most cases the unlikeness is great - so
|
|
great that kinship between the first and the last forms
|
|
would be incredible were it not daily demonstrated in every
|
|
poultry-yard and every garden. More than this is true. The
|
|
changes of form are often several: each of them being an
|
|
apparently complete transformation - egg, larva, pupa,
|
|
imago, for example ... No one of them ends as it begins; and
|
|
the difference between its original structure and its
|
|
ultimate structure is such that, at the outset change of the
|
|
one into the other would have seemed incredible." [67]
|
|
|
|
This universal law of metamorphosis holds not only for
|
|
biology, but for society as well. Modern-day Christianity
|
|
resembles the early Christian church about as much as a
|
|
butterfly resembles a caterpillar. Thomas Jefferson would
|
|
have been horrified if he could have foreseen the
|
|
"government by the consent of the governed" which today is
|
|
the hereditary heir of his Declaration of Independence.
|
|
French revolutionaries took turns beheading one another
|
|
until that great believer in "les droits de l'homme",
|
|
Napoleon Bonaparte, came upon the scene to secure "liberte,
|
|
egalite, fraternite" for all. And wasn't it comrade Stalin
|
|
who in 1906 so confidently forecast the nature of the coming
|
|
revolution?: "The dictatorship of the proletariat will be a
|
|
dictatorship of the entire proletariat as a class over the
|
|
bourgeoisie and not the domination of a few individuals over
|
|
the proletariat." [68] The examples of these ugly duckling
|
|
stories in reverse are endless. For as Robert Burns wrote
|
|
nearly two centuries ago:
|
|
|
|
"The best laid schemes o' mice and men
|
|
Gang aft a-gley;
|
|
An' lea'e us nought but grief and pain
|
|
For promis'd joy." [69]
|
|
|
|
-----
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56. Herbert Marcuse, "Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the
|
|
Rise of Social Theory" (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
|
|
Ltd., 1967), p. 435. This quotation was taken from the
|
|
supplementary chapter written in 1954. The original book was
|
|
first published by Oxford University Press in 1941.
|
|
|
|
57. Kropotkine, Paroles, p. 341.
|
|
|
|
58. Ibid., p. 342.
|
|
|
|
59. Noam Chomsky, "Notes on Anarchism," "Anarchy 116,"
|
|
October, 1970, p. 316.
|
|
|
|
60. Ibid., p. 318.
|
|
|
|
61. Bob Dylan, "Subterranean Homesick Blues," 1965.
|
|
|
|
62. Eltzbacher, op. cit., p. 89.
|
|
|
|
63. Ibid., p. 57.
|
|
|
|
64. Benjamin R. Tucker, "Instead of a Book (By a Man Too
|
|
Busy to Write One)" (New York: Benj. R. Tucker, 1897), p.
|
|
401. Reprinted from "Liberty," May 12, 1888.
|
|
|
|
65. Max Stirner (Johann Kaspar Schmidt), "The Ego and His
|
|
Own: The Case of the Individual Against Authority," trans.
|
|
Steven T. Byington (New York: Libertarian Book Club, 1963),
|
|
p. 298. "Der Einzige und sein Eigentum" was written in 1844
|
|
and translated into English in 1907, when it was published
|
|
in New York by Benj. Tucker.
|
|
|
|
66. Agatha Christie, "Destination Unknown" (London: Fontana
|
|
Books), p. 98.
|
|
|
|
67. Spencer, op, cit., pp. 323-4.
|
|
|
|
68. Stalin, op. cit., p. 97.
|
|
|
|
69. Robert Burns, "To a Mouse," 1785, stanza 7.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
***********************************************************************
|
|
* "Whoever is a complete person does not need - to be an authority!" *
|
|
* From +The False Principle of Our Education+ *
|
|
***********************************************************************
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|